On 15 February 2014 07:46, Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote: > * Reference implementations are always derided as not realistic. I think > we need to think of a different term. I prefer to just say that this > is the upstream implementation. We very much expect that a cloud can > and should operate with this model unmodified. Packagers are doing so > to fit OpenStack into a greater support model, not because "nobody > would ever want to run upstream." I think of how a large portion of > MySQL users tend to just run upstream's binaries. They don't call this > the reference binaries.
Ok, upstream - ack. > * Documentation can be split into an architecture guide which should be > a single source of truth and document interfaces only, and an operations > guide, which will focus on the upstream operations story. Distros should > provide sub-sections for that story to document their differences. > They should not, however, be putting distro specific interfaces in the > architecture documentation, and we would reject such things until they > are known to work upstream. Ok. I'll leave this a few more days to see if more data points arrive, but it seems largely slanted in this direction. That said, I wish there were some way to assess the cost/benefits in terms of OpenStack adoption - which is in a way an operating system itself - consider VMWare - there's /one/ VMWare, no matter which org you buy it from, and which addons or integrations or support that org does. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev