<p>Quick question, I seem to remember there was a review request for python-cloudservers that was semi-abandoned, did I miss when it got packaged? It certainly is not in fedora 15 last time I checked. </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 23, 2011 2:30 PM, "David Nalley" <<a href="mailto:david@gnsa.us">david@gnsa.us</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson <<a href="mailto:pbrobinson@gmail.com">pbrobinson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <<a href="mailto:smooge@gmail.com">smooge@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley <<a href="mailto:david@gnsa.us">david@gnsa.us</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham <<a href="mailto:notting@redhat.com">notting@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>>>>>> <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712</a><br>
>>>>><br>>>>>> The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their<br>>>>>> package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure'<br>>>>>> or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have<br>
>>>>> one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?<br>>>>>><br>
>>>>> Thanks,<br>>>>>> Bill<br>>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>> While I am happy to do this, haven't we already hit string freeze for<br>>>>> F16 (August 2nd per the schedule)? So we are talking about<br>
>>>> <a href="http://comps-f17.xml.in">comps-f17.xml.in</a>?<br>>>>><br>>>>> If I were to do so I think I'd put the following in the group:<br>>>>><br>>>>> eucatools<br>
>>>> aeolus<br>>>>> deltacloud<br>>>>> sheepdog<br>>>>> ceph<br>>>>> glusterfs<br>>>>> hekafs<br>>>>> boxgrinder<br>>>><br>>>> I am guessing that there will also be a need to have what is optional<br>
>>> and required...<br>>><br>>> I would possibly suggest that they're all optional, there's lots of<br>>> different cloud technologies there a lot of which are completely<br>>> standalone separate products that aren't required to interoperate. By<br>
>> having them all optional there's a menu with the list there and people<br>>> can select the particular type of cloud technologies they wish to use.<br>>><br>> <br>> I tend to agree, the spread is so wide, and includes everything from<br>
> HA stuff for the cloud to multiple distributed filesystems, to IaaS<br>> platforms..... short of us defining cloud rather restrictively, I<br>> think this needs to be all optional.<br>> _______________________________________________<br>
> cloud mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org">cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>> <a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud</a><br>
</div>