> On Mar 10, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Devananda van der Veen <devananda....@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:12 PM Lauren Sell <lau...@openstack.org 
> <mailto:lau...@openstack.org>> wrote:
> - Operators don’t want the wild west. They are nervous about dissolving the 
> integrated release, because they want a strong filter and rules - dependency 
> mapping, release timing, test coverage - around the most widely adopted 
> projects. I’m not sure we’re giving them a lot of confidence.
> We're not lowering the testing standards of existing projects... can you be 
> more clear as to what is creating this concern?

The concern they raised was not necessarily about a testing standard for any 
individual project, but more about the combination of testing across that set 
of the most commonly deployed projects. In other words, if there is no “kernel” 
grouping, it potentially makes it harder to understand the full set of 
dependencies, how well the integration between nova and glance is tested, and 
things along those lines. One item that came up that a lot of them seemed to 
appreciate, for example, was that there was some forcing function for the 
integrated projects that kept their dependencies somewhat aligned and allowed 
them to understand what all they might need to be running to deploy any set of 
those projects. If the projects are all split apart, now they would have to 
deal with understanding that separately for each project they intend to deploy. 
Sean had mentioned in the session that some of this was probably already going 
to be changing, but I do think it was an interesting point that seemed to be 
very widely held among the operators there.

> For tags, I think defining a set of projects based on a broad reference 
> architecture / use case like "base compute” or “compute kernel” and “object 
> storage” is critical. Those tags will imply the projects share common 
> dependencies and are released together. If we categorize tags that can be 
> applied, "compute kernel” could be a higher level category and more 
> prominent. Defining those initial tags should provide enough direction and 
> confidence to start considering new projects.
> I've started drafting some tags for "layers" or "use cases" -- I'm sure 
> they'll get expanded on. I'll post a link once I've uploaded to gerrit.

That’s great news. I think defining those important tags will go a long way in 
giving people confidence in the process and moving forward. 

I believe this is the one you started: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/163236/

Might be worth sharing over to the operators mailing list where Subbu has a 
message about some of the discussions as well: 

I’m sorry it took me a while to respond to this. Thanks for taking time to 
provide feedback last week.

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to