Armando M. wrote:
> This thread is moving so fast I can't keep up!
> The fact that troubles me is that I am unable to grasp how we move
> forward, which was the point of this thread to start with. It seems we
> have 2 options:
> - We make GBP to merge as is, in the Neutron tree, with some minor
> revision (e.g. naming?);
> - We make GBP a stackforge project, that integrates with Neutron in some
> shape or form;
> Another option, might be something in between, where GBP is in tree, but
> in some sort of experimental staging area (even though I am not sure how
> well baked this idea is).
> Now, as a community we all need make a decision; arguing about the fact
> that the blueprint was approved is pointless.

I agree with you: it is possible to change your mind on a topic and
revisit past decisions. In past OpenStack history we did revert merged
commits and remove existing functionality because we felt it wasn't that
much of a great idea after all. Here we are talking about making the
right decision *before* the final merging and shipping into a release,
which is kind of an improvement. The spec system was supposed to help
limit such cases, but it's not bullet-proof.

In the end, if there is no consensus on that question within the Neutron
project (and I hear both sides have good arguments), our governance
gives the elected Neutron PTL the power to make the final call. If the
disagreement is between projects (like if Nova disagreed with the
Neutron decision), then the issue could be escalated to the TC.


Thierry Carrez (ttx)

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to