On 04/29/2015 09:19 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-04-29 16:46:13 -0700 (-0700), Joe Gordon wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
[...]
1) Project governance has moved to a big
On 04/29/2015 12:33 PM, neil.jer...@metaswitch.com wrote:
Thanks Russell and Kyle for explaining. I think I get the picture
now, in particular of how these backend projects are mostly under
separate management, but at the same time subject to PTL oversight
and 'part of the wider Neutron
@lists.openstack.org
Reply To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] A big tent home for Neutron backend code
On 04/28/2015 01:17 PM, Neil Jerram wrote:
Apologies for commenting so late, but I'm not clear on the concept of
bringing all
of thing that you have in mind?
Original Message
From: Russell Bryant
Sent: Tuesday, 28 April 2015 18:57
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Reply To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] A big tent home for Neutron
On 04/29/2015 01:25 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote:
My take on the “where does it fit” yardstick:
Does it stand on its own and add value? Then consider it a standalone
project, *or* part of neutron if you and neutron agree that it fits.
Does it *require* neutron to be useful? Then consider having
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
wrote:
Hello!
A couple of things I've been working on lately are project governance
issues as a TC member and also implementation of a new virtual
On 2015-04-29 16:46:13 -0700 (-0700), Joe Gordon wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
[...]
1) Project governance has moved to a big tent model [1]. The vast
majority of projects
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/29/2015 01:25 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote:
My take on the “where does it fit” yardstick:
Does it stand on its own and add value? Then consider it a standalone
project, *or* part of neutron if you and neutron agree that
On 04/27/2015 08:52 PM, Armando M. wrote:
Any project that fails to meet the criteria later can be dropped at any
time. For example, if some repo is clearly unmaintained, it can be
removed.
If we open the door to excluding projects down the road, then wouldn't
we need to
On 04/28/2015 01:17 PM, Neil Jerram wrote:
Apologies for commenting so late, but I'm not clear on the concept of
bringing all possible backend projects back inside Neutron.
I think my question is similar to what Henry and Mathieu are getting at
below - viz:
We just recently decided to
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] A big tent home for Neutron backend code
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:28 AM, henry hly
henry4...@gmail.commailto:henry4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Armando M.
arma...@gmail.commailto:arma
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/22/2015 02:19 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
a) Adopt these as repositories under the Neutron project team.
In this case, I would see them operating with their own review teams as
they do today to avoid imposing
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/27/2015 08:52 PM, Armando M. wrote:
Any project that fails to meet the criteria later can be dropped at
any
time. For example, if some repo is clearly unmaintained, it can be
removed.
If
questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] A big tent home for Neutron
backend code
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:28 AM, henry hly henry4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please also pay some attention on Cons
On 04/22/2015 02:19 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
a) Adopt these as repositories under the Neutron project team.
In this case, I would see them operating with their own review teams as
they do today to avoid imposing additional load on the neutron-core or
neutron-specs-core teams. However, by
Any project that fails to meet the criteria later can be dropped at any
time. For example, if some repo is clearly unmaintained, it can be
removed.
If we open the door to excluding projects down the road, then wouldn't we
need to take into account some form of 3rd party CI validation as
If we've reached the point where we're arguing about naming, dos this mean
we've built consensus on the yes, it makes sense for these to live under
Neutron argument?
I think we are in agreement that these projects need to find a more obvious
home, they feel somewhat orphan otherwise. Most
On 04/22/2015 09:55 PM, Anita Kuno wrote:
On 04/22/2015 09:46 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 April 2015 at 11:19, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello!
A couple of things I've been working on lately are project
On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote:
Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply
'affiliated', ie. with a loose relationship to Neutron, because
they use/integrate with Neutron in some form or another (e.g.
having 3rd-party, extending-api,
On 23 April 2015 at 07:32, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote:
Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply
'affiliated', ie. with a loose relationship to Neutron, because
they use/integrate with Neutron in
On 23 April 2015 at 01:49, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Armando M. wrote:
Is it sensible to assume that Stackforge is going away entirely at some
point in the future, and we'll have a single namespace - OpenStack?
The key difference between Stackforge and OpenStack is
On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/23/2015 12:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 07:32, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote:
Would it
On 04/23/2015 01:19 PM, Armando M. wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/23/2015 12:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 07:32, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com
9:10 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] A big tent home for Neutron backend code
I agree with henry here.
Armando, If we use your analogy with nova that doesn't build and deliver KVM,
we can say that Neutron doesn't build
of the proposed split.
Thanks,
Kyle
Thanks,
Kevin
--
*From:* Armando M. [arma...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2015 9:10 AM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] A big tent home for Neutron
I agree with henry here.
Armando, If we use your analogy with nova that doesn't build and deliver
KVM, we can say that Neutron doesn't build or deliver OVS. It builds a
driver and an agent which manage OVS, just like nova which provides a
driver to manage libvirt/KVM.
Moreover, external
+1
From: Armando M. [arma...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:44 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] A big tent home for Neutron backend code
Could you please also pay some
On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/23/2015 01:19 PM, Armando M. wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/23/2015 12:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 07:32,
On 04/23/2015 03:23 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Doug Wiegley
doug...@parksidesoftware.com mailto:doug...@parksidesoftware.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On
On Apr 23, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/23/2015 03:23 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Doug Wiegley
doug...@parksidesoftware.com mailto:doug...@parksidesoftware.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryant
Doug, HMS Octavia was a British mine sweeper that served during WW2
figthing German warships and u-boats somewhere in the sea.
I therefore believe if you have anything against this name you are secretly
a nazi.
Does that work for the Godwin's law call?
Salvatore
On 23 April 2015 at 22:09, Doug
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Doug Wiegley doug...@parksidesoftware.com
wrote:
On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/23/2015 01:19 PM, Armando M. wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com
Russell Bryant wrote:
On 04/23/2015 03:23 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Doug Wiegley
doug...@parksidesoftware.commailto:doug...@parksidesoftware.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryantrbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 2015-04-23 12:45:14 -0700 (-0700), Joshua Harlow wrote:
Maybe about time we make something like:
http://projects.apache.org/indexes/category.html
And link names to repos there...?
http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/ is sort of our
analogue there, I think. It's not exact,
On 04/23/2015 12:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 07:32, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote:
Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply
'affiliated', ie.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:28 AM, henry hly henry4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please also pay some attention on Cons of this ultimate
splitting Kyle? I'm afraid it would hurt the user experiences.
On the position
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please also pay some attention on Cons of this ultimate
splitting Kyle? I'm afraid it would hurt the user experiences.
On the position of Dev, A naked Neutron without official built-in
reference implementation
Armando M. wrote:
Is it sensible to assume that Stackforge is going away entirely at some
point in the future, and we'll have a single namespace - OpenStack?
The key difference between Stackforge and OpenStack is governance. Any
project can be in Stackforge. Projects that are considered
Hello!
A couple of things I've been working on lately are project governance
issues as a TC member and also implementation of a new virtual
networking alternative with a Neutron driver. So, naturally I started
thinking about how the Neutron driver code fits in to OpenStack governance.
There are
From: Kyle Mestery [mest...@mestery.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:30 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] A big tent home for Neutron backend code
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Russell Bryant
rbry
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello!
A couple of things I've been working on lately are project governance
issues as a TC member and also implementation of a new virtual
networking alternative with a Neutron driver. So, naturally I started
Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply 'affiliated', ie.
with a loose relationship to Neutron, because they use/integrate with
Neutron in some form or another (e.g. having 3rd-party, extending-api,
integrating-via-plugin-model, etc)? Then we could simply consider extending
Could you please also pay some attention on Cons of this ultimate
splitting Kyle? I'm afraid it would hurt the user experiences.
On the position of Dev, A naked Neutron without official built-in
reference implementation probably has a more clear architecture. On
the other side, users would
On 22 April 2015 at 11:19, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello!
A couple of things I've been working on lately are project governance
issues as a TC member and also implementation of a new virtual
networking alternative with a Neutron driver. So, naturally I started
thinking
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 April 2015 at 11:19, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello!
A couple of things I've been working on lately are project governance
issues as a TC member and also implementation of a new virtual
networking
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello!
A couple of things I've been working on lately are project governance
issues as a TC member and also implementation of a new virtual
List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] A big tent home for Neutron backend code
+1
I was in the middle of writing an email asking about the possibility of
splitting out the reference implementation. you beat me to it. :)
I also like the idea of having the PTL
47 matches
Mail list logo
