On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: > Swift had the advantage of starting out as a closed source project that > only had to serve a single master, and thus didn't need external > orchestration to keep it on track. Nova, OTOH, as a community development > effort, essentially had to be all things to all people, which is unworkable; > hence the need for some up-front design to keep some sort of focus to the > development. The problem is that this inevitably descends into bikeshedding, > which has been prominently on display in this thread.
I absolutely do not want to compare different openstack projects. That all too often is perceived as an "us vs them", and I want to avoid that altogether. Yes, nova and swift and glance and keystone and horizon are different. My point from earlier is that because the projects are different (in scope, users, and dev lifecycle), statements like "all openstack projects need to do X" are either meaningless or unmanageable. Openstack is a collection if different parts that should work together, but that doesn't mean that there are one size fits all solutions to issues that come up. These discussions around the One True Way to do things are a distraction at best. If you have 2 people arguing about the best way for an aspect of a particular project should work, have them both code it up (or write the docs or design the UI or whatever) and then compare and choose the best implementation. Bikeshedding (along with complaining about bikeshedding [meta!]) feels satisfying, but it's a hollow pursuit that distracts from getting things done. --John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
