Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-27 Thread Chris Dent
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Angus Salkeld wrote: I believe developers working on OpenStack work for companies that really want this to happen. The developers also want their projects to be well regarded. Just the way the problem is using framed is a bit like you did above and this is very daunting for

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-27 Thread Sean Dague
On 08/26/2014 11:40 AM, Anne Gentle wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net mailto:s...@dague.net wrote: On 08/20/2014 12:37 PM, Zane Bitter wrote: On 11/08/14 05:24, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the idea that being (and remaining) in the integrated

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-27 Thread Doug Hellmann
On Aug 27, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote: On 08/26/2014 11:40 AM, Anne Gentle wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net mailto:s...@dague.net wrote: On 08/20/2014 12:37 PM, Zane Bitter wrote: On 11/08/14 05:24, Thierry Carrez wrote: So

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-27 Thread Doug Hellmann
On Aug 26, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-27 Thread Doug Hellmann
On Aug 27, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Chris Dent chd...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Doug Hellmann wrote: For example, Matt helped me with an issue yesterday, and afterwards I asked him to write up a few details about how he reached his conclusion because he was moving fast enough that I

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-27 Thread Chris Dent
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Doug Hellmann wrote: I have found it immensely helpful, for example, to have a written set of the steps involved in creating a new library, from importing the git repo all the way through to making it available to other projects. Without those instructions, it would have

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-27 Thread Doug Hellmann
On Aug 27, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Chris Dent chd...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Doug Hellmann wrote: I have found it immensely helpful, for example, to have a written set of the steps involved in creating a new library, from importing the git repo all the way through to making it

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-26 Thread Jay Pipes
On 08/25/2014 03:50 PM, Adam Lawson wrote: I recognize I'm joining the discussion late but I've been following the dialog fairly closely and want to offer my perspective FWIW. I have a lot going through my head, not sure how to get it all out there so I'll do a brain dump, get some feedback and

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-26 Thread Anne Gentle
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote: On 08/20/2014 12:37 PM, Zane Bitter wrote: On 11/08/14 05:24, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the idea that being (and remaining) in the integrated release should also be judged on technical merit is a slightly different effort.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-26 Thread Joe Gordon
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not necessarily divertable on command. Sure additional cross-project

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-26 Thread Angus Salkeld
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-26 Thread Rochelle.RochelleGrober
On August 26, 2014, Anne Gentle wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.netmailto:s...@dague.net wrote: On 08/20/2014 12:37 PM, Zane Bitter wrote: On 11/08/14 05:24, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the idea that being (and remaining) in the integrated release should also be

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-25 Thread Sean Dague
On 08/20/2014 12:37 PM, Zane Bitter wrote: On 11/08/14 05:24, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the idea that being (and remaining) in the integrated release should also be judged on technical merit is a slightly different effort. It's always been a factor in our choices, but like Devananda says, it's

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-25 Thread Adam Lawson
I recognize I'm joining the discussion late but I've been following the dialog fairly closely and want to offer my perspective FWIW. I have a lot going through my head, not sure how to get it all out there so I'll do a brain dump, get some feedback and apologize in advance. One the things I like

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-22 Thread Michael Chapman
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On 20 August 2014 02:37, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: ... I'd like to see more unification of implementations in TripleO - but I still believe our basic principle of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-22 Thread Clint Byrum
Excerpts from Michael Chapman's message of 2014-08-21 23:30:44 -0700: On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On 20 August 2014 02:37, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: ... I'd like to see more unification

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-22 Thread Sean Dague
On 08/22/2014 01:30 AM, Michael Chapman wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On 20 August 2014 02:37, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-22 Thread Duncan Thomas
On 21 August 2014 19:39, gordon chung g...@live.ca wrote: from the pov of a project that seems to be brought up constantly and maybe it's my naivety, i don't really understand the fascination with branding and the stigma people have placed on non-'openstack'/stackforge projects. it can't be a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-22 Thread Mooney, Sean K
which require ip plan/legal approval on a per project basis. Regards sean -Original Message- From: Duncan Thomas [mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 4:39 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-22 Thread Michael Chapman
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote: On 08/22/2014 01:30 AM, Michael Chapman wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On 20 August

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-22 Thread Joshua Harlow
Comment inline. On Aug 22, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Michael Chapman wop...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote: On 08/22/2014 01:30 AM, Michael Chapman wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-22 Thread gordon chung
It may be easier for you, but it certainly isn't inside big companies, e.g. HP have pretty broad approvals for contributing to (official) openstack projects, where as individual approval may be needed to contribute to none-openstack projects. i was referring to a company bigger than hp...

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-22 Thread gustavo panizzo (gfa)
On 08/22/2014 02:13 PM, Michael Chapman wrote: We try to target puppet module master at upstream OpenStack master, but without CI/CD we fall behind. The missing piece is building packages and creating a local repo before doing the puppet run, which I'm working on slowly as I want a single

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Chris Friesen
On 08/20/2014 09:54 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-08-20 14:53:22 -0700: On 08/20/2014 05:06 PM, Chris Friesen wrote: On 08/20/2014 07:21 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: Hi Thierry, thanks for the reply. Comments inline. :) On 08/20/2014 06:32 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Thierry Carrez
Zane Bitter wrote: On 11/08/14 05:24, Thierry Carrez wrote: This all has created a world where you need to be*in* OpenStack to matter, or to justify the investment. This has created a world where everything and everyone wants to be in the OpenStack integrated release. This has created more

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Thierry Carrez
Jay Pipes wrote: I don't believe the Programs are needed, as they are currently structured. I don't really believe they serve any good purposes, and actually serve to solidify positions of power, slanted towards existing power centers, which is antithetical to a meritocratic community. Let me

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Sean Dague
On 08/20/2014 02:37 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 08/20/2014 11:41 AM, Zane Bitter wrote: On 19/08/14 10:37, Jay Pipes wrote: By graduating an incubated project into the integrated release, the Technical Committee is blessing the project as the OpenStack way to do some thing. If there are projects

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Chris Dent
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Sean Dague wrote: By blessing one team what we're saying is all the good ideas pool for tackling this hard problem can only come from that one team. This is a big part of this conversation that really confuses me. Who is that one team? I don't think it is that team that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Jay Pipes
On 08/21/2014 07:58 AM, Chris Dent wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Sean Dague wrote: By blessing one team what we're saying is all the good ideas pool for tackling this hard problem can only come from that one team. This is a big part of this conversation that really confuses me. Who is that one

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Jay Pipes
On 08/20/2014 11:54 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-08-20 14:53:22 -0700: On 08/20/2014 05:06 PM, Chris Friesen wrote: On 08/20/2014 07:21 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: ...snip We already run into issues with something as basic as competing SQL databases. If the TC

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Kyle Mestery
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: Zane Bitter wrote: On 11/08/14 05:24, Thierry Carrez wrote: This all has created a world where you need to be*in* OpenStack to matter, or to justify the investment. This has created a world where everything and

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Jay Pipes
On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On 20 August 2014 02:37, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: ... I'd like to see more unification of implementations in TripleO - but I still believe our basic principle of using OpenStack technologies that already exist in preference to third

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Clint Byrum
Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2014-08-21 09:21:06 -0700: On 21 August 2014 14:27, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: Specifically for Triple-O, by making the Deployment program == Triple-O, the TC has picked the disk-image-based deployment of an undercloud design as The

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Zane Bitter
On 20/08/14 15:37, Jay Pipes wrote: For example, everyone agrees that Ceilometer has room for improvement, but any implication that the Ceilometer is not interested in or driving towards those improvements (because of NIH or whatever) is, as has been pointed out, grossly unfair to the Ceilometer

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread gordon chung
The point I've been making is that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer project as the OpenStack Way of Metering, I think we do a disservice to our users by picking a winner in a space that is clearly still unsettled. can we avoid using the word 'blessed' -- it's extremely

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread David Kranz
On 08/21/2014 02:39 PM, gordon chung wrote: The point I've been making is that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer project as the OpenStack Way of Metering, I think we do a disservice to our users by picking a winner in a space that is clearly still unsettled. can we avoid

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Clint Byrum
Excerpts from David Kranz's message of 2014-08-21 12:45:05 -0700: On 08/21/2014 02:39 PM, gordon chung wrote: The point I've been making is that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer project as the OpenStack Way of Metering, I think we do a disservice to our users by

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread David Kranz
On 08/21/2014 04:12 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from David Kranz's message of 2014-08-21 12:45:05 -0700: On 08/21/2014 02:39 PM, gordon chung wrote: The point I've been making is that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer project as the OpenStack Way of Metering, I think we do

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Brad Topol
OpenStack (919) 543-0646 Internet: bto...@us.ibm.com Assistant: Kendra Witherspoon (919) 254-0680 From: Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com To: openstack-dev openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Date: 08/21/2014 04:13 PM Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-21 Thread Stefano Maffulli
I think we can't throw Ceilometer and Triple-O in the same discussion: they're two separate issues IMHO, with different root causes and therefore different solutions. On 08/21/2014 06:27 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: The point I've been making is that by the TC continuing to bless only the Ceilometer

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-20 Thread Eoghan Glynn
Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not necessarily divertable on command. Sure additional cross-project resources can and need to be ponied up, but I am doubtful that will be enough.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-20 Thread Thierry Carrez
Eoghan Glynn wrote: [...] And which cross-project concern do you think is most strained by the current set of projects in the integrated release? Is it: * QA * infra * release management * oslo * documentation * stable-maint or something else? Good question. IMHO QA, Infra and

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-20 Thread Thierry Carrez
Jay Pipes wrote: [...] If either of the above answers is NO, then I believe the Technical Committee should recommend that the integrated project be removed from the integrated release. HOWEVER, I *also* believe that the previously-integrated project should not just be cast away back to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-20 Thread Jay Pipes
Hi Thierry, thanks for the reply. Comments inline. :) On 08/20/2014 06:32 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Jay Pipes wrote: [...] If either of the above answers is NO, then I believe the Technical Committee should recommend that the integrated project be removed from the integrated release. HOWEVER,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-20 Thread Zane Bitter
On 19/08/14 10:37, Jay Pipes wrote: By graduating an incubated project into the integrated release, the Technical Committee is blessing the project as the OpenStack way to do some thing. If there are projects that are developed *in the OpenStack ecosystem* that are actively being developed to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-20 Thread Zane Bitter
On 11/08/14 05:24, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the idea that being (and remaining) in the integrated release should also be judged on technical merit is a slightly different effort. It's always been a factor in our choices, but like Devananda says, it's more difficult than just checking a number of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-20 Thread Jay Pipes
On 08/20/2014 11:41 AM, Zane Bitter wrote: On 19/08/14 10:37, Jay Pipes wrote: By graduating an incubated project into the integrated release, the Technical Committee is blessing the project as the OpenStack way to do some thing. If there are projects that are developed *in the OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-20 Thread Chris Friesen
On 08/20/2014 07:21 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: Hi Thierry, thanks for the reply. Comments inline. :) On 08/20/2014 06:32 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: If we want to follow your model, we probably would have to dissolve programs as they stand right now, and have blessed categories on one side, and teams

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-20 Thread Jay Pipes
On 08/20/2014 05:06 PM, Chris Friesen wrote: On 08/20/2014 07:21 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: Hi Thierry, thanks for the reply. Comments inline. :) On 08/20/2014 06:32 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: If we want to follow your model, we probably would have to dissolve programs as they stand right now, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-20 Thread Angus Salkeld
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Zane Bitter zbit...@redhat.com wrote: On 11/08/14 05:24, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the idea that being (and remaining) in the integrated release should also be judged on technical merit is a slightly different effort. It's always been a factor in our choices,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-20 Thread Clint Byrum
Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2014-08-18 23:41:20 -0700: On 18 August 2014 09:32, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote: I can see your perspective but I don't think its internally consistent... Here's why folk are questioning Ceilometer: Nova is a set of tools to abstract

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-20 Thread Clint Byrum
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-08-20 14:53:22 -0700: On 08/20/2014 05:06 PM, Chris Friesen wrote: On 08/20/2014 07:21 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: Hi Thierry, thanks for the reply. Comments inline. :) On 08/20/2014 06:32 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: If we want to follow your model, we

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-19 Thread Robert Collins
On 18 August 2014 09:32, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote: I can see your perspective but I don't think its internally consistent... Here's why folk are questioning Ceilometer: Nova is a set of tools to abstract virtualization implementations. With a big chunk of local things - local image

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-19 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 08/14/2014 01:08 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com mailto:mar...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 15:36 -0700, Devananda van der Veen wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-19 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 08/14/2014 03:38 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: On 08/14/2014 09:21 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: On Aug 14, 2014 2:04 AM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com mailto:egl...@redhat.com wrote: Letting the industry field-test a project and feed their experience back into the community is a slow

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-19 Thread Flavio Percoco
On 08/13/2014 08:41 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com mailto:mar...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 09:30 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: While I definitely think re-balancing our quality responsibilities back

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-19 Thread Sandy Walsh
On 8/18/2014 9:27 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Clint Byrum wrote: Here's why folk are questioning Ceilometer: Nova is a set of tools to abstract virtualization implementations. Neutron is a set of tools to abstract SDN/NFV implementations. Cinder is a set of tools to abstract block-device

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-19 Thread Jay Pipes
Caution: words below may cause discomfort. I ask that folks read *all* of my message before reacting to any piece of it. Thanks! On 08/19/2014 02:41 AM, Robert Collins wrote: On 18 August 2014 09:32, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote: I can see your perspective but I don't think its

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-19 Thread Stefano Maffulli
On 08/19/2014 07:37 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: All of these projects should be able to live in the Program, in the openstack/ code namespace, for as long as the project is actively developed, and let the contributor communities in these competing projects *naturally* work to do any of the following:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-19 Thread Robert Collins
On 20 August 2014 02:37, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: ... I'd like to see more unification of implementations in TripleO - but I still believe our basic principle of using OpenStack technologies that already exist in preference to third party ones is still sound, and offers substantial

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-19 Thread Robert Collins
On 20 August 2014 15:28, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: I think you mean it 'can be argued'... ;). And I'd be happy if folk in those communities want to join in the deployment program and have code repositories in openstack/. To date, none have asked. Sorry, that was

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-18 Thread Thierry Carrez
Clint Byrum wrote: Here's why folk are questioning Ceilometer: Nova is a set of tools to abstract virtualization implementations. Neutron is a set of tools to abstract SDN/NFV implementations. Cinder is a set of tools to abstract block-device implementations. Trove is a set of tools to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-18 Thread Mark McLoughlin
On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 14:23 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Clint Byrum wrote: Here's why folk are questioning Ceilometer: Nova is a set of tools to abstract virtualization implementations. Neutron is a set of tools to abstract SDN/NFV implementations. Cinder is a set of tools to abstract

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-18 Thread Anne Gentle
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote: On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Matthew Treinish mtrein...@kortar.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:43:21PM -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote: Divert all cross project efforts from the following projects so we can

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-18 Thread Anne Gentle
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-17 Thread Stan Lagun
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Sandy Walsh sandy.wa...@rackspace.com wrote: I recently suggested that the Ceilometer API (and integration tests) be separated from the implementation (two repos) so others might plug in a different implementation while maintaining compatibility, but that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-17 Thread Jay Pipes
On 08/17/2014 05:11 AM, Stan Lagun wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Sandy Walsh sandy.wa...@rackspace.com mailto:sandy.wa...@rackspace.com wrote: I recently suggested that the Ceilometer API (and integration tests) be separated from the implementation (two repos) so others might

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-17 Thread Nadya Privalova
Hello all, As a Ceilometer's core, I'd like to add my 0.02$. During previous discussions it was mentioned several projects which were started or continue to be developed after Ceilometer became integrated. The main question I'm thinking of is why it was impossible to contribute into existing

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-17 Thread Clint Byrum
Here's why folk are questioning Ceilometer: Nova is a set of tools to abstract virtualization implementations. Neutron is a set of tools to abstract SDN/NFV implementations. Cinder is a set of tools to abstract block-device implementations. Trove is a set of tools to simplify consumption of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-16 Thread Chris Dent
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Sandy Walsh wrote: I recently suggested that the Ceilometer API (and integration tests) be separated from the implementation (two repos) so others might plug in a different implementation while maintaining compatibility, but that wasn't well received. Personally, I'd like

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-16 Thread Sandy Walsh
On 8/16/2014 10:09 AM, Chris Dent wrote: On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Sandy Walsh wrote: I recently suggested that the Ceilometer API (and integration tests) be separated from the implementation (two repos) so others might plug in a different implementation while maintaining compatibility, but that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-15 Thread Sandy Walsh
On 8/14/2014 6:42 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Aug 14, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.commailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.commailto:d...@doughellmann.com wrote: On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Eoghan Glynn

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-15 Thread Eoghan Glynn
But, if someone asked me what they should use for metering today, I'd point them towards Monasca in a heartbeat. FWIW my view is that Monasca is an interesting emerging project, with a team accreting around it that seems to be interested in collaboration. We've had ongoing discussions with

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-15 Thread Joe Gordon
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Sandy Walsh sandy.wa...@rackspace.com wrote: On 8/14/2014 6:42 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Aug 14, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote: On Aug 13,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-15 Thread Joe Gordon
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not necessarily divertable on command. Sure additional cross-project resources can

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-15 Thread Joe Gordon
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not necessarily divertable on command. Sure additional cross-project resources can

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-14 Thread Eoghan Glynn
Letting the industry field-test a project and feed their experience back into the community is a slow process, but that is the best measure of a project's success. I seem to recall this being an implicit expectation a few years ago, but haven't seen it discussed in a while. I think

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-14 Thread Devananda van der Veen
On Aug 14, 2014 2:04 AM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: Letting the industry field-test a project and feed their experience back into the community is a slow process, but that is the best measure of a project's success. I seem to recall this being an implicit expectation a few

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-14 Thread Russell Bryant
On 08/14/2014 09:21 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: On Aug 14, 2014 2:04 AM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com mailto:egl...@redhat.com wrote: Letting the industry field-test a project and feed their experience back into the community is a slow process, but that is the best measure

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-14 Thread Vishvananda Ishaya
On Aug 13, 2014, at 5:07 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:55:48PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42:52AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:56:04AM -0700, Jay Pipes wrote: By ignoring stable branches,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-14 Thread Joe Gordon
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote: On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: At the end of the day, that's probably going to mean saying No to more things. Everytime I turn around everyone wants the TC to say No to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-14 Thread Doug Hellmann
On Aug 14, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote: On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: At the end of the day, that's probably going to mean saying No to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-14 Thread Eoghan Glynn
Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not necessarily divertable on command. Sure additional cross-project resources can and need to be ponied up, but I am doubtful that will be enough. OK, so

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Eoghan Glynn
One thing I'm not seeing shine through in this discussion of slots is whether any notion of individual cores, or small subsets of the core team with aligned interests, can champion blueprints that they have a particular interest in. I think that's because we've focussed in this

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Nikola ─Éipanov
On 08/13/2014 04:05 AM, Michael Still wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote: It seems like this is exactly what the slots give us, though. The core review team picks a number of slots indicating how much work they think they can actually do (less than

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Thierry Carrez
Nikola ─Éipanov wrote: While I agree with motivation for this - setting the expectations, I fail to see how this is different to what the Swift guys seem to be doing apart from more red tape. It's not different imho. It's just that nova as significantly more features being thrown at it, so the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Thierry Carrez
Rochelle.RochelleGrober wrote: [...] So, with all that prologue, here is what I propose (and please consider proposing your improvements/changes to it). I would like to see for Kilo: - IRC meetings and mailing list meetings beginning with Juno release and continuing through the summit

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:30:12PM -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: I really like this idea, as Michael and others alluded to in above, we are attempting to set cycle goals for Kilo in Nova. but I think it is worth doing

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Giulio Fidente
On 08/07/2014 12:56 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 08/07/2014 02:12 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 07:10:23AM +1000, Michael Still wrote: On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: We seem to be unable to address some key issues in the software

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:56:04AM -0700, Jay Pipes wrote: On 08/07/2014 02:12 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 07:10:23AM +1000, Michael Still wrote: On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: We seem to be unable to address some key

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Mark McLoughlin
On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 18:03 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, With the incredible growth of OpenStack, our development community is facing complex challenges. How we handle those might determine the ultimate success or failure of OpenStack. With this cycle we hit new limits in our

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Steven Hardy
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42:52AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:56:04AM -0700, Jay Pipes wrote: On 08/07/2014 02:12 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 07:10:23AM +1000, Michael Still wrote: On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Thierry Carrez

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:55:48PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42:52AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:56:04AM -0700, Jay Pipes wrote: That said, I entirely agree with you and wish efforts to stabilize would take precedence over

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Mark McLoughlin
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 09:30 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: While I definitely think re-balancing our quality responsibilities back into the projects will provide an overall better release, I think it's going to take a long time before it lightens our load to the point where we get more breathing

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Ihar Hrachyshka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 13/08/14 14:07, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:55:48PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42:52AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:56:04AM -0700, Jay Pipes wrote: That said,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Russell Bryant
On 08/12/2014 10:05 PM, Michael Still wrote: there are hundreds of proposed features for Juno, nearly 100 of which have been accepted. However, we're kidding ourselves if we think we can land 100 blueprints in a release cycle. FWIW, I think this is actually huge improvement from previous

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Mark McLoughlin
On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 15:36 -0700, Devananda van der Veen wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com wrote: Yes. Additionally, and I think we've been getting better at this in the 2 cycles that we've had an all-elected TC, I think we need to learn how to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Mark McLoughlin
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 14:26 -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote: It seems like this is exactly what the slots give us, though. The core review team picks a number of slots indicating how much work they think they can actually do (less than the available number of blueprints), and then blueprints

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Kyle Mestery
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:30:12PM -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: I really like this idea, as Michael and others alluded to in above, we are

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

2014-08-13 Thread Mark McLoughlin
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 14:12 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: Here is the full nova proposal on Blueprint in Kilo: Runways and Project Priorities https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112733/ http://docs-draft.openstack.org/33/112733/4/check/gate-nova-docs/5f38603/doc/build/html/devref/runways.html

  1   2   >