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

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:59:36AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > On Aug 27, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Sean Dague wrote: [. . .] > > So I think we all want the future where OpenStack is a really nice set > > of composable services that let you easily create the cloud you want. > > They are all stable,

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

On Aug 27, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Chris Dent 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 available to

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

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 bee

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

On Aug 27, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Chris Dent 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 wasn’t >>

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

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 wasn’t actually learning anything from what he was saying to me on IRC.

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

On Aug 26, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > > > Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large > > > > contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not > > > > necessarily divertabl

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

On Aug 27, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 08/26/2014 11:40 AM, Anne Gentle wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Sean Dague > > wrote: >> >>On 08/20/2014 12:37 PM, Zane Bitter wrote: >>> On 11/08/14 05:24, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the i

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

On 08/26/2014 11:40 AM, Anne Gentle wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Sean Dague > 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 r

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

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

On August 26, 2014, Anne Gentle wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Sean Dague 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 release should >> also be judged on

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

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > >> >> >> > > > Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large >> > > > contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not >> > > > necessarily dive

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

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Eoghan Glynn 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 resour

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

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Sean Dague 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. It's > >

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

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Sean Dague 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. It's > >

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

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 a

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

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 m

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

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,

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

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 sin

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

> 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... m

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

Comment inline. On Aug 22, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Michael Chapman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 08/22/2014 01:30 AM, Michael Chapman wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jay Pipes > > wrote: > > > > On 08

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

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 08/22/2014 01:30 AM, Michael Chapman wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jay Pipes > > wrote: > > > > On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > > > > On 20 August 2014 02:37,

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

Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-08-22 04:51:49 -0700: > On 08/22/2014 01:30 AM, Michael Chapman wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jay Pipes > > wrote: > > > > On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > > > > On 20 Au

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

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] The

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

On 21 August 2014 19:39, gordon chung 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 legal thi

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

On 08/22/2014 01:30 AM, Michael Chapman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jay Pipes > wrote: > > On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > > On 20 August 2014 02:37, Jay Pipes > wrote: > ...

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

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 wrote: > > > On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > > > >> On 20 August 2014 02:37, Jay Pipes wrote: > >> ... > >> > >> I'd like to see more unification of implementations

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

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

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

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 p

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

uished Engineer OpenStack (919) 543-0646 Internet: bto...@us.ibm.com Assistant: Kendra Witherspoon (919) 254-0680 From: Clint Byrum To: openstack-dev , Date: 08/21/2014 04:13 PM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release Excerpts from David Kranz&#x

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

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 a

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

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

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

> 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 extremel

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

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

Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2014-08-21 09:21:06 -0700: > On 21 August 2014 14:27, Jay Pipes 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 > > OpenStack Way of

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

On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On 20 August 2014 02:37, Jay Pipes 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 sou

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

On 21 August 2014 14:27, Jay Pipes 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 > OpenStack Way of Deployment. And as I've said previously in this thread, I > believe that the d

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

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Thierry Carrez 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 everyone wants

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

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 s

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

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

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

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 th

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

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

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

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 crea

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

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

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 y

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

Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2014-08-18 23:41:20 -0700: > On 18 August 2014 09:32, Clint Byrum 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 virtualiza

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

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:37 AM, 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 De

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

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 ha

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

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 o

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

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 ecos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 quest

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

> > > 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

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

On 20 August 2014 15:28, Robert Collins 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 incomplete. I should add that p

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

On 20 August 2014 02:37, Jay Pipes 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 dogfood an

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

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 followi

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

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 wrote: I can see your perspective but I don't think its internally consistent...

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

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-de

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

On 08/13/2014 08:41 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Mark McLoughlin > wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 09:30 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > > > While I definitely think re-balancing our quality responsibilities > back > > in

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

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" > > wrote: >>> >>> >> Letting the industry field-test a project and feed their experience >> back into the community

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

On 08/14/2014 01:08 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Mark McLoughlin > 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 > wrote: >

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

On 18 August 2014 09:32, Clint Byrum 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 storage (now

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

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > >> >> > > Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large >> > > contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not >> > > necessarily divertable on

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

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Matthew Treinish > 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 > > focus > > ou

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

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 t

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

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

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 existi

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

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 inte

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

On 08/17/2014 05:11 AM, Stan Lagun wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Sandy Walsh 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 plug in a different

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

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:17 PM, 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. > >

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

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

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

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 t

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

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Eoghan Glynn 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 and

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

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Eoghan Glynn 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 and

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

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote: > On 8/14/2014 6:42 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > On Aug 14, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Doug Hellmann > wrote: > >> >> On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: >> >> > >> >>> At

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

> 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 t

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

On 8/14/2014 6:42 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Aug 14, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Joe Gordon mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Doug Hellmann mailto:d...@doughellmann.com>> wrote: On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Eoghan Glynn mailto:egl...@redhat.com>> wrote: > >>>

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

On 08/13/2014 06:42 AM, 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 wrote: We seem to be un

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

> > 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. O

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

On Aug 14, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > > >>> At the end of the day, that's probably going to mean saying No to more > >>> things. Everytime I turn around every

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

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Eoghan Glynn 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 > >>> things, just not to their

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

On Aug 13, 2014, at 5:07 AM, 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: >>> By ignoring stable branches, leaving it

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

On 08/14/2014 09:21 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2014 2:04 AM, "Eoghan Glynn" > 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 >> > >> me

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

On Aug 14, 2014 2:04 AM, "Eoghan Glynn" 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 f

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

> >> 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

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

Russell Bryant wrote: > I think perhaps some middle ground makes sense. > > 1) Start doing a better job of generating a priority list, and > identifying the highest priority items based on group will. > > 2) Expect that reviewers use the priority list to influence their > general review time. 2b

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

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Mark McLoughlin 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 wrote: > >> > Yes. >> > >> > Additionally, and I think we've been getting better at this in the 2 cycles >> > that we've had

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

On 08/13/2014 04:01 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2014, at 9:11 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > >> On 08/13/2014 08:52 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: >>> 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 > r

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

On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > What “cross-project efforts” are we talking about? The liaison program in > Oslo has been a qualified success so far. Would it make sense to extend that > to other programs and s

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

On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Matthew Treinish 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 > focus > our cross project resources. Once we are in a bitter place we can expand >>>

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

On 2014-08-13 15:43:21 -0400 (-0400), Eoghan Glynn wrote: [...] > That said however, I agree that it would be useful for the > QA/infra/doc teams to know who in each project is most > domain-knowledgeable when they need to reach out about a > project-specific issue. As someone who needs to reach o

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

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 > > >> focus > > >> our cross project resources. Once we are in a bitter place we can expand > > >> our > > >> cross project resources to cover these aga

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

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > What “cross-project efforts” are we talking about? The liaison program in > Oslo has been a qualified success so far. Would it make sense to extend > that to other programs and say that each project needs at least one > designated QA, Infra,

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

On Aug 13, 2014, at 9:11 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 08/13/2014 08:52 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> 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

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

> >> Divert all cross project efforts from the following projects so we can > >> focus > >> our cross project resources. Once we are in a bitter place we can expand > >> our > >> cross project resources to cover these again. This doesn't mean removing > >> anything. > >> * Sahara > >> * Trove > >

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

On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Eoghan Glynn 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 >>> things, just not to their particular thing. :) Which is human nature. >>> But I think if we do

  1   2   >