On 10/11/2011 09:02 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Linear versioning is of very limited use.
If OpenStack wants to keep a clear definition of what the OpenStack CORE
is, then this needs to evolve linearly (austin, bexar, cactus, diablo,
essex, etc...). I think you could make an argument that this should be
left to deployers, but for now I think it's accepted that the dev model
that produces the OpenStack core should release an unbranched tree. You
could compare the ecosystem around linux to that of java. The linux
model allows RedHat and Ubuntu to ship patched up versions of the kernel
that never actually correspond exactly to a formal kernel version. Java,
on the other hand simply has a bunch of independent JVM makers that have
to pass a test suite to call themselves java, but are otherwise
independent linearly advancing codebases.
Extensions are great, and you could, in theory, make everything an
extension. I certainly think lots of stuff should be supplied in a
pluggable way, but making everything be an extension seems over the top.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
