On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Eric Day <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 01:45:30PM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote: >> Finally, I personally view the promise of OpenStack as an open source >> project where the community has a clear, agreed upon way of >> contributing to the project as a whole and to the individual >> subprojects. Having every subproject doing their own thing from a >> community contribution perspective makes cross-project contribution >> difficult and potentially annoying to contributors. While I understand >> that the Swift code base is at a different stage in its life than the >> other subprojects and that the Swift team looks with disdain at the >> "simple projects" like Glance (Chuck's words, not mine), the fact is >> that there is an openness to contribution that seems to exist with >> Nova, Glance, and now Keystone that does not exist in the same way for >> either Swift or Burrow. I strongly feel that this is not by accident. > > I'm not sure what barriers there really are right now that prevent > contributors. Swift and Burrow are setup the same way as Nova and > Glance on Launchpad, and Keystone is on github. If Swift and Burrow > don't have the same openness, but keystone does, I don't think this > has anything to do with the tooling or autonomy since up to this > point they have been more or less the same. I think it has more to > do with visibility or attractiveness of work that needs to be done.
I would partly agree with this, sure. However, I don't see how having *more* autonomy helps bring OpenStack projects together nor encourage cross-project contributions. > From my perspective, Nova is a hot project with a lot of active dev > going on. Burrow and Swift could be the same IMHO. > Swift is fairly mature so it doesn't require the same level of > attention. It probably isn't going to gain the same popularity as > the VM fabric components though. I disagree, but we can agree to disagree. > Burrow is still early on and does have the same visibility yet, > and will probably not have the same popularity either even when it > is mature. I disagree again :) > All this is perfectly fine of course, we just need to realize each > project is somewhere different on the spectrum, or on an entirely > different spectrum. Drawing comparisons between them can sometimes > be comparing apples to oranges, which is why I think less policy and > more autonomy is a better route. I don't see how you reach that conclusion. If we are to compare OpenStack projects to each other, we either view them as interrelated components of a cloud computing platform, or we don't. If you do view them as interrelated, then having the projects follow an agreed-to set of vetted options makes them more comparable as apples. If you don't agree with the overall philosophy, then everything will always be apples and oranges. Best, jay _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-poc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
