On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Sean M. Collins <s...@coreitpro.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 04:20:50AM EST, Assaf Muller wrote: >> I understand you see 'Dragonflow being part of the Neutron stadium' >> and 'Dragonflow having high visibility' as tied together. I'm curious, >> from a practical perspective, how does being a part of the stadium >> give Dragonflow visibility? If it were not a part of the stadium and >> you had your own PTL etc, what specifically would change so that >> Dragonflow would be less visible. > >> Currently I don't understand why >> being a part of the stadium is good or bad for a networking project, >> or why does it matter. > > > I think the issue is of public perception.
That's what I was trying to point out. But it must be something other than perception, otherwise we could remove the inclusion list altogether. A project would not be in or out. > As others have stated, the > issue is the "in" vs. "out" problem. We had a similar situation > with 3rd party CI, where we had a list of drivers that were "nice" and > had CI running vs drivers that were "naughty" and didn't. Prior to the > vendor decomposition effort, We had a multitude of drivers that were > in-tree, with the public perception that drivers that were in Neutron's > tree were "sanctioned" by the Neutron project. > > That may not have been the intention, but that's what I think happened. > > -- > Sean M. Collins > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
