Thanks Renat, I'll keep waiting, and hoping that we can figure this out for everyone's benefit. Because in the end we are all much stronger working together and much weaker when not.
Sent from my really tiny device... On Mar 13, 2014, at 11:41 PM, "Renat Akhmerov" <rakhme...@mirantis.com<mailto:rakhme...@mirantis.com>> wrote: Folks, Mistral and TaskFlow are significantly different technologies. With different set of capabilities, with different target audience. We may not be doing enough to clarify all the differences, I admit that. The challenge here is that people tend to judge having minimal amount of information about both things. As always, devil in the details. Stan is 100% right, “seems” is not an appropriate word here. Java seems to be similar to C++ at the first glance for those who have little or no knowledge about them. To be more consistent I won’t be providing all the general considerations that I’ve been using so far (in etherpads, MLs, in personal discussions), it doesn’t seem to be working well, at least not with everyone. So to make it better, like I said in that different thread: we’re evaluating TaskFlow now and will share the results. Basically, it’s what Boris said about what could and could not be implemented in TaskFlow. But since the very beginning of the project I never abandoned the idea of using TaskFlow some day when it’s possible. So, again: Joshua, we hear you, we’re working in that direction. I'm reminded of http://www.slideshare.net/RenatAkhmerov/mistral-hong-kong-unconference-trac k/2<http://www.slideshare.net/RenatAkhmerov/mistral-hong-kong-unconference-track/2> where it seemed like we were doing much better collaboration, what has happened to break this continuity? Not sure why you think something is broken. We just want to finish the pilot with all the ‘must’ things working in it. This is a plan. Then we can revisit and change absolutely everything. Remember, to the great extent this is research. Joshua, this is what we talked about and agreed on many times. I know you might be anxious about that given the fact it’s taking more time than planned but our vision of the project has drastically evolved and gone far far beyond the initial Convection proposal. So the initial idea of POC is no longer relevant. Even though we finished the first version in December, we realized it wasn’t something that should have been shared with the community since it lacked some essential things. Renat Akhmerov @ Mirantis Inc. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
