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:
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 on the other (with projects from some teams being
blessed as the current solution).
Why do we have to have "blessed" categories at all? I'd like to think of
a day when the TC isn't picking winners or losers at all. Level the
playing field and let the quality of the projects themselves determine
the winner in the space. Stop the incubation and graduation madness and
change the role of the TC to instead play an advisory role to upcoming
(and existing!) projects on the best ways to integrate with other
OpenStack projects, if integration is something that is natural for the
project to work towards.
It seems to me that at some point you need to have a recommended way of
doing things, otherwise it's going to be *really hard* for someone to
bring up an OpenStack installation.
Why can't there be multiple recommended ways of setting up an OpenStack
installation? Matter of fact, in reality, there already are multiple
recommended ways of setting up an OpenStack installation, aren't there?
There's multiple distributions of OpenStack, multiple ways of doing
bare-metal deployment, multiple ways of deploying different message
queues and DBs, multiple ways of establishing networking, multiple open
and proprietary monitoring systems to choose from, etc. And I don't
really see anything wrong with that.
This is an argument for loosely coupling things, rather than tightly
integrating things. You will almost always win my vote with that sort of
movement, and you have here. +1.
I mostly agree, but I think we should distinguish between things that
are "possible", and things that are "supported". Arguably, anything
that is "supported" should be tested as part of the core infrastructure
and documented in the core OpenStack documentation.
We already run into issues with something as basic as competing SQL
databases.
If the TC suddenly said "Only MySQL will be supported", that would not
mean that the greater OpenStack community would be served better. It
would just unnecessarily take options away from deployers.
On the other hand, if the community says explicitly "we only test with
sqlite and MySQL" then that sends a signal that anyone wanting to use
something else should plan on doing additional integration testing.
I've stumbled over some of these issues, and it's no fun. (There's still
an open bug around the fact that sqlite behaves differently than MySQL
with respect to regex.)
IMO, OpenStack should be about choice. Choice of hypervisor, choice of
DB and MQ infrastructure, choice of operating systems, choice of storage
vendors, choice of networking vendors.
Err, uh. I think OpenStack should be about users. If having 400 choices
means users are just confused, then OpenStack becomes nothing and
everything all at once. Choices should be part of the whole not when 1%
of the market wants a choice, but when 20%+ of the market _requires_
a choice.
I agree.
If there are too many choices without enough documentation as to why
someone would choose one over the other, or insufficient testing such
that some choices are theoretically valid but broken in practice, then
it's less useful for the end users.
Chris
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
