On Sep 22, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Tim Bell <tim.b...@cern.ch> wrote:

> On 22 Sep 2014, at 20:53, Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 19, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote:
>>> Monty Taylor wrote:
>>>> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
>>>> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>>>> http://inaugust.com/post/108
>>> Hey Monty,
>>> As you can imagine, I read that post with great attention. I generally
>>> like the concept of a tightly integrated, limited-by-design layer #1
>>> (I'd personally call it "Ring 0") and a large collection of "OpenStack"
>>> things gravitating around it. That would at least solve the attraction
>>> of the integrated release, suppress the need for incubation, foster
>> I’m not sure I see this change reducing the number of incubated projects 
>> unless we no longer incubate and graduate projects at all. Would everything 
>> just live on stackforge and have a quality designation instead of an 
>> “officialness” designation? Or would we have both? ATC status seems to imply 
>> we need some sort of officialness designation, as you mention below.
> The quality designation is really important for the operator community who 
> are trying to work out what we can give to our end users.
> Offering early helps to establish the real-life experience and give good 
> feedback on the designs.  However, the operator then risks leaving their 
> users orphaned if the project does not get a sustainable following or 
> significant disruption if the APIs change.
> The packaging teams are key here as well. When do Ubuntu and Red Hat work out 
> the chain of pre-reqs etc. to produce installable packages, packstack/juju 
> tool support ?
> We do need to have some way to show that an layer #2 package is ready for 
> prime time production and associated criteria (packages available, docs 
> available, >1 company communities, models for HA and scale, …)

Right. I’m trying to understand if we are talking about doing that *instead* of 
our existing incubation/graduation process, or in addition to that process as a 
new thing. I like the idea of adding a quality designation. I’m not sure 
replacing our existing process with that designation is a good idea.


> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to