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.

_______________________________________________ Rdo-list mailing list Rdo-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe(a)redhat.com