[Pulp-list] How about we just merge these core features into Cobbler?
skvidal at fedoraproject.org
Fri Sep 12 20:31:58 UTC 2008
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
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:
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?
More information about the Pulp-list