[Pulp-list] How about we just merge these core features into Cobbler?
mdehaan at redhat.com
Fri Sep 12 20:39:02 UTC 2008
seth vidal wrote:
> 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?
yum install seth-translator.
More information about the Pulp-list