On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote:
>
> > (Anne wrote this paragraph, I prematurely chopped the attribution
> line...)
> > I'm reading and reading and reading and my thoughts keep returning to,
> > "we're optimizing only for dev." :)
>

FWIW Anne, that's where the bulk of the problems are.  No matter how you
slice/layer/ring/fold us, devs have the same (non-)interest in docs and
infra and testing.  These all scale horizontally to accommodate whatever is
in the premium seats inside the circus tent but does it matter as much
which box they are in?


> Any project that fully stands on it's own (like Swift or Ironic, given
> that keystone is optional) can be stood up on their own. Ok, they go in
> one bucket and you call tell people, you want this function, just
> [...]
> That's not the case for the compute stack, for better or worse. And,
>

Oddly enough, that was once the case and the 'compute stack' was once all
part of Nova.  So thinking of Nova-and-its-spawn as a single unit for some
purposes reduces a good bit of complexity.

So with that in mind, there is now Nova++, Swift, Ironic, Heat all either
playing alone or in groups, then the general admission seats in the tent.
This seems like a simpler model to govern, and to provide baseline guidance
in the testing relationships.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtro...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to