[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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



Mairin Duffy wrote:
Seth Vidal wrote:
It seems like cobbler has functioning code and a good-sized userbase.
Active development. Pulp otoh has some ideas and some structure but not
a lot of functioning code to backup those ideas. It seems like Michael
is suggesting we take the feature set that pulp wants to achieve and
implement it as a mode/interface/etc of cobbler. Essentially, folding
pulp into cobbler.

I'll be honest it sounds like a fair idea. There's going to be a fair
bit of overlapping code b/t pulp and cobbler anyway - and it would get
more exposure to the feature ideas from pulp if people could get to them
in cobbler. Since I know of many, many, many existing cobbler installs.

While I appreciate it not mattering what code stuff lives in - from a
user and 'marketing' standpoint it does matter.

If I've already got cobbler setup I want to see the new bits  added
there not have to setup something somewhat overlapping but different.

So, to encourage and expand the userbase that both projects  are
ultimately targeting. Why not join forces, converge under the cobbler
code base and scm and move up from there?

I think I said this earlier, but honestly I don't know if it is or isn't a good idea. I leave this up to the folks doing the implementation, and if Michael is planning to do the implementation of pulp in cobbler, I am all the more happy to see something that actually works getting done. :)

What I am worried about is how, at least it appears to me, the design work and user interface ideas are getting pushed off to the side as something different / not a part of this.

But we could be arguing in circles saying the same thing but using inconsistent terminology. I mean, I think the way Michael is spinning it is that he doesn't care about UI, he just cares about code that works. That's fair enough although I also thinks that limits the reach of the actual code, and I do think that having a UI for this stuff is important and it was always a part of the original vision as it was something that a lot of people specifically said they needed. So Michael has been posing that the UI should be a part of Spacewalk, and not cobbler.

What I am saying is I would leave it up to you and others to design the UI, as that is not my area of expertise.

I would LOVE to have a better CobblerWeb, so if the features in Pulp could be added to CobblerWeb and make it not suck as much as it (CobblerWeb) does now, that's awesome. I just want to make sure it works for installation too, so I can look after existing use cases.

The summary is -- Cobbler is a good codebase to start from, let's get going and start Pulp there today, and forget the names "Cobbler" and "Pulp" as I don't find them signficant, I care about the users.



Now, that is I think the one piece I'm struggling with. The entire point of pulp was to do the core repo management bits of spacewalk right. We had determined quite some time ago that it would be better to do that with a clean slate than to try to clean up what is already in spacewalk, because to be fair I think in the past four years we've been TRYING to do that in spacewalk but have not made much but very small incremental improvements. I think, at least at some point, that myself and others had the feeling that we wanted to break it out into a different project so we could have the freedom and space to make the kinds of changes and innovations we needed to make WITHOUT risking the core functionality of spacewalk.

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. :(

I do not intend to imply that. I'm saying that "*I*" don't have a vested interest in the UI direction and am willing to let it goes mostly where it goes.

I would love to see contributions made to make CobblerWeb be that. It may take a lot of work, but we have a starting point.


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!

~m


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]