[Rdo-list] Packaging the big tent (or at least part of it)

Steve Baker sbaker at redhat.com
Tue May 26 21:41:07 UTC 2015

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.

More information about the dev mailing list