My take was that the primary benefit that would justify pursuing this would
be an independent release schedule, but we don't have any changes
(committed or pending) that raise that issue. The prime example for me was
Python 3 support, where we really wanted it released, but had to wait about
8
I'm worried that my response here effectively shut down the proposal.
That wasn't my goal; if it's valuable, let's do it, but I want more
information first.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 09:42:46PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:29:51AM -0600, Terry Wilson wrote:
> > The Python
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:29:51AM -0600, Terry Wilson wrote:
> The Python library isn't dependent on the code in the OVS tree. It
> being in-tree has a few shortcomings. My rationale for recommending
> the split:
>
> * Simple features and bugfixes for the Python lib can't be used by
> other
The Python library isn't dependent on the code in the OVS tree. It
being in-tree has a few shortcomings. My rationale for recommending
the split:
* Simple features and bugfixes for the Python lib can't be used by
other projects (like Neutron) until the very latest OVS release is
widely supported
