Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-09-23 21:38:37 -0700: > On 09/23/2014 10:29 PM, Steven Dake wrote: > > There is a deployment program - tripleo is just one implementation. > > Nope, that is not correct. Like it or not (I personally don't), Triple-O > is *the* Deployment Program for OpenStack: > > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/programs.yaml#n284 > > Saying Triple-O is just one implementation of a deployment program is > like saying Heat is just one implementation of an orchestration program. > It isn't. It's *the* implemenation of an orchestration program that has > been blessed by the TC: > > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/programs.yaml#n112 >
That was written before we learned everything we've learned in the last 12 months. I think it is unfair to simply point to this and imply that bending or even changing it is not open for discussion. > > We > > went through this with Heat and various projects that want to extend > > heat (eg Murano) and one big mistake I think Murano folks made was not > > figuring out where there code would go prior to writing it. I'm only > > making a statement as to where I think it should belong. > > Sorry, I have to call you to task on this. > > You think it was a mistake for the Murano folks to "not figure out where > the code would go prior to writing it"? For the record, Murano existed > nearly 2 years ago, as a response to various customer requests. Having > the ability to properly deploy Windows applications like SQL Server and > Active Directory into an OpenStack cloud was more important to the > Murano developers than trying to predict what the whims of the OpenStack > developer and governance model would be months or years down the road. > > Tell me, did any of Heat's code exist prior to deciding to propose it > for incubation? Saying that Murano developers should have thought about > where their code would live is holding them to a higher standard than > any of the other developer communities. Did folks working on > disk-image-builder pre-validate with the TC or the mailing list that the > dib code would "live in the triple-o program"? No, of course not. It was > developed naturally and then placed into the program that fit it best. > > Murano was developed naturally in exactly the same way, and the Murano > developers have been nothing but accommodating to every request made of > them by the TC (and those requests have been entirely different over the > last 18 months, ranging from "split it out" to "just propose another > program") and by the PTLs for projects that requested they split various > parts of Murano out into existing programs. > > The Murano developers have done no power grab, have deliberately tried > to be as community-focused and amenable to all requests as possible, and > yet they are treated with disdain by a number of folks in the core Heat > developer community, including yourself, Clint and Zane. And honestly, I > don't get it... all Murano is doing is generating Heat templates and > trying to fill in some pieces that Heat isn't interested in doing. I > don't see why there is so much animosity towards a project that has, to > my knowledge, acted in precisely the ways that we've asked projects to > act in the OpenStack community: with openness, transparency, and > community good will. Disdain is hardly the right word. Disdain implies we don't have any respect at all for Murano. I cannot speak for others, but I do have respect. I'm just not interested in Murano. FWIW, I think what Steven Dake is saying is that he does not want to end up in the same position Murano is in. I think that is unlikely, as we're seeing many projects hitting the same wall, which is the cause for discussing changing how we include or exclude projects. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
