On 08/02/16 09:24 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/08/2016 08:54 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: <snip>Would our votes change if Poppy had support for OpenCDN (imagine it's being maintained) even if that solution is terrible?I guess my question is: When do we start considering a project to be safe from an open source perspective? Because, having support for 1 opensource technology doesn't mean it provides enough (or good) open source ways to deploy the software. If the only supported open solution is *terrible* then deployers would be left with only commercial solutions to choose from.There is a lot of difference between 1 and 0 options, even if 1 isn't a great option. It also means the design has been informed by open backends, and not just commercial products.
If I'm not misinterpreting the above, you're saying that design adviced by open source backends give better results. While I'm a huge fan of basing designs on open source solutions, I don't think the above is necessarily true. I don't think a solution that comes out of common features taken from commercial products is bad. Just to be clear, I do prefer designs based on open solutions but I don't think those, like Poppy, that provision commercial solutions are bad. Sorry if I misunderstood you here.
I think one could also consider Neutron originally started in such a state. openvswitch was definitely not mature technology when this effort started. You pretty much could only use commercial backends and have anything work. The use in OpenStack exposed issues, people contributed to proper upstream, things got much much better. We now have a ton of open backends in Neutron. That would never have happened if the projects started with 0.
++ This is exactly where I wanted to get to. So, arguably, the Poppy team could "simply" take OpenCDN (assuming the license allow for) put it on GH, get a gate on it and come back to the TC requesting inclusion with the difference this time it'll have support for 1, very old, open source, CDN software. This wouldn't be seen as a "nice thing" from a community perspective but, technically, it'd suffice all the requirements. Right? I don't think *anyone* will actually contribute to OpenCDN ater that happens and it'll still require the TC to say: "That solution is not well maintained still, we need to make sure it's production ready before it can be considered a valid open source backend for Poppy"
The flip side is that CDN is a problem space that no consumers or ops are interested in open backends. That's ok, however, if that's the case, it doesn't feel OpenStack to me. Just being overlays for commercial services seems a different thing that the rest of what's in OpenStack today.
Agreed that there's no much interest in having open backends for CDNs but there *is* interest in CDNs, which are an important part of nowaday's cloud applications. I personally want my cloud to suggest me something that *works* and give me a seamless way to integrate with it the same way I integrate with the DNS solution, messaging solution, etc. In other words, I want my cloud to provide this and to do so, I agree it doesn't need to be an "official" project for clouds to deploy it but I do think it's a valid solution to have in the cloud tools-belt.
I think this is a place where there are lots of reasonable and different points of view. And if it was clear cut there wouldn't be the need for discussion.
++ Before we get to make any call, I want to make sure we've enough arguments that we can base our opinions on. In fact, this very email currently has two different opinions in favor and against including Poppy, although I believe I've formed my opinion already. Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
