On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov> wrote:
> Ok. I'll play devils advocate here and speak to the other side of this, > because you raised an interesting issue... > > Ceph is outside of the tent. It provides a (mostly) api compatible > implementation of the swift api (radosgw), and it is commonly used in > OpenStack deployments. > > Other OpenStack projects don't take it into account because its not a big > tent thing, even though it is very common. Because of some rules about only > testing OpenStack things, radosgw is not tested against even though it is > so common. This causes odd breakages at times that could easily be > prevented, but for procedural things around the Big Tent. > I think this statement needs some fact checking. The reality is that Ceph is a PERFECT example of a valuable and widely used project in the OpenStack eco system but doesn't not officially reside in the eco system. I can assure you that Cinder and Nova inparticular take into account, almost to the point of being detrimental to other storage options. I suspect part of your view stems from issues prior to Ceph being an active part of CI, which now it is. The question of testing isn't the same here IMO. In the case of Block storage in particular we have all drivers (none of which but the ref LVM driver being a part of OpenStack governance) running CI testing. Granted it's not pretty, but there's nothing keeping them from implementing CI, running and reporting. In the case of open source software based options like Ceph, Gluster, SheepDog etc... those are all project maintained outside of OpenStack Governance BUT they all have Infra resources running CI etc. > > I do think this should be fixed before we advocate single vendor projects > exit the big tent after some time. As the testing situation may be made > worse. > > Thanks, > Kevin > ________________________________________ > From: Thierry Carrez [thie...@openstack.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:59 AM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects > > Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and > >> nobody seems interested to join it, the technical value of that project > >> being "in" OpenStack rather than a separate project in the OpenStack > >> ecosystem of projects is limited. It's limited for OpenStack (why > >> provide resources to support a project that is obviously only beneficial > >> to one organization ?), and it's limited to the organization itself (why > >> go through the OpenStack-specific open processes when you could shortcut > >> it with internal tools and meetings ? why accept the oversight of the > >> Technical Committee ?). > > > > A project can still be useful for everyone with a single vendor > > contributing to it, even after a long period of existence. IMO that's > > not the issue we're trying to solve. > > I agree with that -- open source projects can be useful for everyone > even if only a single vendor contributes to it. > > But you seem to imply that the only way an open source project can be > useful is if it's developed as an OpenStack project under the OpenStack > Technical Committee governance. I'm not advocating that these projects > should stop or disappear. I'm just saying that if they are very unlikely > to grow a more diverse affiliation in the future, they derive little > value in being developed under the OpenStack Technical Committee > oversight, and would probably be equally useful if developed outside of > OpenStack official projects governance. There are plenty of projects > that are useful to OpenStack that are not developed under the TC > governance (libvirt, Ceph, OpenvSwitch...) > > What is the point for a project to submit themselves to the oversight of > a multi-organization Technical Committee if they always will be the > result of the efforts of a single organization ? > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
