On 19/03/14 12:31 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Kurt Griffiths wrote:Kudos to Balaji for working so hard on this. I really appreciate his candid feedback on both frameworks.Indeed, that analysis is very much appreciated. From the Technical Committee perspective, we put a high weight on a factor that was not included in the report results: consistency and convergence between projects we commonly release in an integrated manner every 6 months. There was historically a lot of deviation, but as we add more projects that deviation is becoming more costly. We want developers to be able to jump from one project to another easily, and we want convergence from an operators perspective. Individual projects are obviously allowed to pick the best tool in their toolbox. But the TC may also decide to let projects live out of the "integrated release" if we feel they would add too much divergence in.
My only concern in this case - I'm not sure if this has been discussed or written somewhere - is to define what the boundaries of that divergence are. For instance, and I know this will sound quite biased, I don't think there's anything wrong on supporting a *set* of wsgi frameworks. To be fair, there's already a set since currently integrated projects use webob, swob and Pecan. The point I'd like to get at is that as a general rule we probably shouldn't limit the set of supported libraries to just 1. Cheers, Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
pgp6sx_pc63_r.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
