In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD passes the resolution for Heat to call itself, "OpenStack Orchestration" (which I don't believe it has), Heat remains "an integrated project called Heat" and NOT "OpenStack Orchestration"
Am I getting it right? > *Can* the projects themselves use the word "OpenStack" such as > "OpenStack Orchestration"? Answer: yes absolutely. This is already a > done deal and we are already doing it in practice. And its covered > under the bylaws once they are included in the integrated release by > TC vote. There is no need for further action. On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org>wrote: > Boris Renski wrote: > > None of this answers the question of "what is currently the difference > > between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said, but it > > sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point. > > Well, no. > > "Integrated" is the list of projects we produce and release together > every 6 months. That's fully determined by the TC. > > "The Core OpenStack Project" as defined in the bylaws is the list of > projects that can call themselves "OpenStack X". The TC recommends that > it's the same as the list of integrated projects, but the BoD may decide > to exclude some of those (since the bylaws grant them that power). > > And then there are all the other fun use cases for the word "core". > > So while there is definitely a relation between "Integrated" and one of > the many use cases of the term "Core", I definitely wouldn't go as far > as saying *integrated* = *core* at this point. > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
