[Pulp-list] How about we just merge these core features into Cobbler?

[seth vidal]

On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 16:22 -0400, Mairin Duffy wrote:
> So now I feel like we've come back in a circle, and what has proven to 
> be a losing strategy (fixing what's already in spacewalk) is again back 
> on the table.
> 
> Does that make more sense, put that way?
> 
> > If I dare say it - it sure seems like good synergy! :)
> > 
> > But in all seriousness it does seem like a good place to collaborate
> > well that helps get pulp's ideas into production and helps the existing
> > users of cobbler.
> 
> Sans UI. :(
> 
> > am I really offbase here?
> 
> I don't think so and thanks for the fresh perspective. I think you 
> helped me realized that my main issue is with the UI bits 'living' in 
> spacewalk, because I've been there for, again, four years trying to make 
> that happen!

okay, I think I know what happened here - reading through the archives
again.

Michael was trying to not say 'why don't we fold pulp into cobbler' that
he never actually said that.

I think he wants the ui work from pulp to be implemented in cobbler. On
the cobbler wiki it has:

https://fedorahosted.org/cobbler/wiki/TheRoadmap

under one of them it talks about the webui work that's needed. I think
the goal would look something like:
 - put all of the pulp ui plans in here.

So I don't think it would mean sans-ui at all. I think michael is saying
his ui-fu is limited and that if the people who are working on pulp want
to work on the pulpui w/o having to deal with implementing the backend
parts - they should come to cobbler, implement it there - and then the
users magically get the bits w/o having to have to separate backend
implementations that may or may not match up in all ways.

Does that jive?

-sv