John Dickinson wrote: > I really don't think the PPB should vote to allow a project to manage its > code in a different was. That decision should be made by the project's > respective devs and its PTL. > [...]
I think it boils down to "what does it mean to be an OpenStack core project". On one hand you have Swift, that pushed to have its own version numbers and its own milestone plan, and wants to be an independent project that happens to receive an OpenStack stamp every 6 month on their last available milestone. On the other hand, you have Nova and Glance, that use the OpenStack version numbers, a common and predictable milestone plan, and want to be subprojects in an integrated project landscape. There are differing views on this, and it's clearly part of the PPB role to define what it means to be an OpenStack core project, and therefore what's acceptable for them. It recently ruled that a dynamic milestone plan was acceptable for the moment. It should rule whether letting each core project choose its own toolset is acceptable or not. If the constraints that the PPB sets for OpenStack core projects are unacceptable for Swift, I guess there is always the option to step down and become an associated project instead... -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
