On 08/11/2016 10:30, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Ash wrote: >> [...] >> Here's another take on the situation. If there are people who genuinely >> wish to see a CI pipeline that can support something like Go, perhaps >> you can establish a prerequisite of working with the Infra team on >> establishing the new pipeline. In my opinion, this seems to be the major >> gate. So, if there's a clear path identified, resources provided, and >> the Infra team is ultimately benefitted, then I'm not sure why there >> should be another rejection. Just a thought. I know this proposal >> continues to come up and I'm a big fan of seeing other languages >> supported, especially Go. But I also understand that it can break >> things. Personally, I would even volunteer to work on such an Infra effort. >> >> BTW, it is quite possible that another group might feel the same >> constraints. It's perfectly reasonable. But if we can overcome such >> obstacles, would the TC still have a concern? > > The TC isn't just one person. In complex situations like this where you > have to weigh the trade-off between opening up more choices and our > community's ability to digest/survive the change, there will always be a > wide variety of opinions. I won't claim to be able to predict how the > current membership would vote.
Yup - and the TC could possibly change half, (or even all) its members during time it takes to get this work done. > That said, I think that if we can have more confidence that our > structure can handle it (from infra to release/stable/dep management) > and that the OpenStack community will share expertise and best practices > on Go and avoid reinventing the wheel in every project, I expect a > majority of TC members to take that leap of faith. There was a bit of work done for the previous proposal, but the main objections were not to do with any of points raised in this email / blog. The objections were mainly cultural - about how it would impact the community (which *is* very important), and the exactly why it was needed for the projects who were asking. > To me, the important part is that introducing Go should not be another > way for some of our community to be different, but another way for our > community to be one. It should do more to bind our community together > than to split it into more factions and silos. > I would agree - but I would ask that we find a way forward that does not require huge amounts of up front work, for a gamble at the end of the process, where the work could be written off for any number of other reasons. __________________________________________________________________________ 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
