On 06/27/2013 12:54 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 06/27/2013 05:04 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
Let's do it! (On Thierry's timetable so that we get valuable practice
talking about onboarding programs.)
Sounds good to me as long as we all agree that Localization/Translations
are a technical
On 06/24/2013 11:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
To match with the current state we would end up with:
* Projects (Nova, Neutron, Swift, Glance, Keystone, Horizon, Cinder,
Ceilometer, Heat)
* Incubated projects (Trove, Ironic)
* Programs (Oslo, Infrastructure, Documentation, QA)
I think we
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 06/24/2013 11:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
To match with the current state we would end up with:
* Projects (Nova, Neutron, Swift, Glance, Keystone, Horizon, Cinder,
Ceilometer, Heat)
* Incubated projects (Trove, Ironic)
* Programs (Oslo, Infrastructure,
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 14:15 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
4. Be potentially able to define a set of projects that are the
OpenStack product (markmc)
Random thought on this ...
If one of the release deliverables was e.g. a openstack.org/havana page
which included links to the tarballs of the
Mark Washenberger wrote:
* There are efforts that span multiple projects but work directly on the
project code repositories, like integrated release, or stable
maintenance, or vulnerability management (collectively called for the
convenience of this thread horizontal efforts).
On 25 June 2013 20:19, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
without a code repo today, so it's a moot point : I suggest saying
that until it is revisited, there cannot be a Program w/o a code repo.
What we have today is a number of efforts that are pretty central to
OpenStack (like
Robert Collins wrote:
So, doing [the 6 monthly] releases and stable branches seem like the
same thing to me : it's packaging up the project output for
consumption by redistributors (and low-resource risk-averse orgs).
That totally makes sense to me as a program - but I think calling it
Hey,
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 11:50 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
The TC would bless the *mission statement* of the program rather than
the specific set of projects implemented to reach that goal.
This is a really nice way of putting it and you've captured a bunch of
other stuff very well too.
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 13:14 -0400, Monty Taylor wrote:
* Where would openstack/requirements fall ?
I think openstack/requirements sits under oslo - although right now
it's a joint-venture between oslo and infra.
If you look at the Oslo mission statement(s):
Anne Gentle wrote:
Dare I ask, what about TryStack? Infra seems to get a ton under it but
that's where I'd place it if I had to state a preference.
I'd see TryStack as a separate program, with the goal of maintaining an
infrastructure that lets users play with OpenStack. That goal sounds a
bit
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
[1] - ok, some caveats on what I mean by integrated release ...
We're producing software for people who want to build clouds. A software
product, for want of a better term.
Right now, we say the official service projects (definition: a project
which exposes a REST
On 06/25/2013 12:42 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Anne Gentle wrote:
Dare I ask, what about TryStack? Infra seems to get a ton under it but
that's where I'd place it if I had to state a preference.
I'd see TryStack as a separate program, with the goal of maintaining an
infrastructure that
I like the programs idea and the direction this thread is going.
As we reconsider the relationship of repos and programs to the OpenStack
project, I think we should include one more aspect of taxonomy.
We have several orgs on github related to openstack:
openstack/
openstack-infra/
James E. Blair wrote:
I propose that in the future, we adopt the following strategy:
* Any repo associated with an official OpenStack program is entitled to
use the openstack org.
* Programs may request an org for their program, with justification,
but in general we should limit the
Hi everyone,
Official OpenStack projects are those under the oversight of the
Technical Committee, and contributing to one grants you ATC status
(which in turn you use to elect the Technical Committee members).
The list of official projects used to be simple (Swift+Nova) but
nowadays it is
Thanks for kicking off this discussion! I think the idea of programs has
fantastic promise.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote:
Hi everyone,
Official OpenStack projects are those under the oversight of the
Technical Committee, and contributing to one
On 06/24/2013 05:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi everyone,
Official OpenStack projects are those under the oversight of the
Technical Committee, and contributing to one grants you ATC status
(which in turn you use to elect the Technical Committee members).
The list of official projects
17 matches
Mail list logo
