On 08/04/2014 10:29 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 08/04/2014 09:46 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Jay Pipes <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/04/2014 09:09 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
Duncan Thomas
On Aug 1, 2014 9:44 PM, "Jay Pipes" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Yup. Though I'd love for this code to live in olso, not glance...
Why Oslo? There seems to be a general obsession with getting things into
Oslo, but our (cinder team) general experiences with the end result have
been highly variable, to the point where we've discussed just saying no
to Oslo code since the pain is more than the gain. In this case, the
glance team are the subject matter experts, the glance interfaces and
internals are their core competency, I honestly can't see any value in
putting the project anywhere other than glance
2 reasons.
1) This is code that will be utilized by >1 project, and is a library, not a
service endpoint. That seems to be right up the Oslo alley.
2) The mission of the Glance program has changed to being an application
catalog service, not an image streaming service.
Best,
-jay
Oslo isn’t the only program that can produce reusable libraries, though. If the
Glance team is going to manage this code anyway, it makes sense to leave it in
the Glance program.
Agreed. Honestly it's better to keep the review teams close to the
expertise for the function at hand.
It needs to be ok that teams besides oslo create reusable components for
other parts of OpenStack. Oslo should be used for things where there
isn't a strong incumbent owner. I think we have a strong incumbent owner
here so living in Artifacts program makes sense to me.
Sure, fair points from all. If it can be imported/packaged without
including all the legacy Glance code, then I'd be more behind keeping it
in Glance...
-jay
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
