Re: [Rdo-list] Packaging the big tent (or at least part of it)
On 27/05/15 09:23, Steve Gordon wrote:
Hi all,
At the community meetup, which we held in a somewhat lightning talk focused format due to
time constraints, we touched on the subject of packaging the big tent [1] and said that if
something was under OpenStack governance we (as a community, not we as in Red Hat) would
be willing to accept it into RDO assuming somebody was willing to package/maintain it.
Now packaging isn't really my end of things so I have to admit I haven't been
paying exhaustive attention to the discussion about opening up the packaging
infrastructure to external contributions, but I have been approached by one or two people
who would be interested in packaging projects that have recently been added to the
OpenStack namespace and they either develop or maintain a key interest in. Is there a
quickstart I can point such potential contributors at?
Thanks,
Steve
[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/RDO_Vancouver
Heat had a design summit session which resulted in agreeing to remove
our contrib resources and bringing big-tent resources into the main heat
tree. The flow on from this is that Liberty Heat will depend on many new
python-*client projects that may not yet be packaged.
We do have criteria for these resources coming in-tree, such as being in
the openstack namespace, and being included in global-requirements.txt,
but we should have some consideration for the impact this has on
downstream packaging.
So either we just insist that downstream package all these clients, or
we come up with some further criteria for the in-tree resources for when
their client imports should be optional.
Any opinions from the RDO community would be most welcome.