On 2017-06-22 06:11:39 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
> It doesn't look like either (pinned repos or topics) are currently
> available over the API (topics in get format are experimental, but no
> edit as of yet). The pinned repositories aren't such a big deal, we're
> talking a handful her
On 2017-06-22 05:54:41 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote:
> On 06/22/2017 04:33 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> > Jeremy is right that the GitHub mirroring goes beyond an infrastructure
> > service: it's a marketing exercise, an online presence more than a
> > technical need. As such it needs to be
Samuel Cassiba wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2017, at 03:01, Sean Dague wrote:
>> The micro repositories for config management and packaging create this
>> overwhelming wall of projects from the outside. I realize that git repos
>> are cheap from a dev perspective, but they are expensive from a concept
>>
> On Jun 22, 2017, at 03:01, Sean Dague wrote:
>
> On 06/21/2017 09:52 PM, Chris Hoge wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2017-06-21 13:52:11 -0500 (-0500), Lauren Sell wrote:
>>> [...]
To make this actionable...Github is just a mirror of our
On 06/21/2017 05:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-06-21 13:52:11 -0500 (-0500), Lauren Sell wrote:
> [...]
>> To make this actionable...Github is just a mirror of our
>> repositories, but for better or worse it's the way most people in
>> the world explore software. If you look at OpenStack o
On 21/06/17 16:27 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/21/2017 02:52 PM, Lauren Sell wrote:
Two things we should address:
1) Make it more clear which projects are “officially” part of
OpenStack. It’s possible to find that information, but it’s not obvious.
I am one of the people who laments the demis
On 06/21/2017 09:52 PM, Chris Hoge wrote:
>
>> On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>
>> On 2017-06-21 13:52:11 -0500 (-0500), Lauren Sell wrote:
>> [...]
>>> To make this actionable...Github is just a mirror of our
>>> repositories, but for better or worse it's the way most people
On 06/22/2017 04:33 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
>> [...]
>> I think even if it was only solvable on github, and not cgit, it would
>> help a lot. The idea of using github project tags and pinning suggested
>> by Lauren seems great to me.
>>
>> If we replicated the pinning on githu
Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> [...]
> This is one of my biggest concerns as well where high-cost (in the
> sense of increasingly valuable Infra team member time) solutions are
> being tossed around to solve the "what's official?" dilemma, while
> not taking into account that the overwhelming majority of
Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
> I think even if it was only solvable on github, and not cgit, it would
> help a lot. The idea of using github project tags and pinning suggested
> by Lauren seems great to me.
>
> If we replicated the pinning on github.com/openstack to "popular
> projects" here - https:
> On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>
> On 2017-06-21 13:52:11 -0500 (-0500), Lauren Sell wrote:
> [...]
>> To make this actionable...Github is just a mirror of our
>> repositories, but for better or worse it's the way most people in
>> the world explore software. If you look at
On 2017-06-21 16:27:14 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
> I'd still also like to see us using that structure well, and
> mirroring only things we tag as official to github.com/openstack,
> and the rest to /openstack-ecosystem or something.
[...]
I can understand the sentiment, but we'd need
On 2017-06-21 13:52:11 -0500 (-0500), Lauren Sell wrote:
[...]
> To make this actionable...Github is just a mirror of our
> repositories, but for better or worse it's the way most people in
> the world explore software. If you look at OpenStack on Github
> now, it’s impossible to tell which project
On 06/21/2017 02:52 PM, Lauren Sell wrote:
> Two things we should address:
>
> 1) Make it more clear which projects are “officially” part of
> OpenStack. It’s possible to find that information, but it’s not obvious.
> I am one of the people who laments the demise of stackforge…it was very
> clear
Several folks on this thread have talked about the different constituencies and
problems we’re trying to solve with naming. Most of the people following this
thread understand all of the terminology and governance we’ve defined, but
that's still a very small percentage of people who care about O
On 2017-06-19 08:42:04 -0700 (-0700), Chris Hoge wrote:
[...]
> Why not bring back the name Stackforge and apply that to
> unofficial projects? It’s short, descriptive, and unambiguous.
[...]
Logistical points aside, that name is strikingly similar to another
and previously much more popular but n
On 2017-06-21 09:20:42 -0700 (-0700), Clark Boylan wrote:
[...]
> A few days ago I suggested a variant of Thierry's suggestion below. Get
> rid of the 'openstack' prefix entirely for hosting and use stackforge
> for everything. Then officially governed OpenStack projects are hosted
> just like any
> On Jun 21, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Clark Boylan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017, at 08:48 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>> On 06/19/2017 05:42 PM, Chris Hoge wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
> I think those are all fin
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017, at 08:48 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> On 06/19/2017 05:42 PM, Chris Hoge wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >>
> >> Sean Dague wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> >>> "Friend
On 06/19/2017 05:42 PM, Chris Hoge wrote:
On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
"Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
that aren't official projects
N" stack here.
Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)
From: Flavio Percoco [fla...@redhat.com]
Sent: 21 June 2017 15:44
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "bigtent&q
___
From: Flavio Percoco [fla...@redhat.com]
Sent: 20 June 2017 17:44
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "bigtent"
terminology
On 20/06/17 00:33 +, joehuang wrot
co [fla...@redhat.com]
Sent: 20 June 2017 17:44
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "bigtent"
terminology
On 20/06/17 00:33 +, joehuang wrote:
>I think openstack community provides a flat p
On 20/06/17 00:33 +, joehuang wrote:
I think openstack community provides a flat project market place for
infrastructure is good enough:
all projects are just some "goods" in the market place, let the cloud operators
to select projects
from the project market place for his own infrastruct
it?
openstack is "OPEN" stack.
Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)
From: Matt Riedemann [mriede...@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 June 2017 22:56
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent&q
On 06/16/2017 02:57 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15 2017, Doug Hellmann wrote:
One of the *most* common complaints the TC gets from outside the
contributor community is that people do not understand what projects
are part of OpenStack and what parts are not. We have a clear
definition o
On 19/06/17 16:11, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 06/16/2017 05:18 AM, Graham Hayes wrote:
>> On 15/06/17 22:35, Ed Leafe wrote:
>>> On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>>
For me it's one of the most annoying yet challenging/interesting
aspects: free software development is as muc
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
> Sean Dague wrote:
>> [...]
>> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
>> "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
>> that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, bu
On 06/16/2017 05:18 AM, Graham Hayes wrote:
On 15/06/17 22:35, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
For me it's one of the most annoying yet challenging/interesting
aspects: free software development is as much about community and
politics as it is actual softwar
On 6/17/2017 10:55 AM, Jay Bryant wrote:
I am responding under Tim's note because I think it gets at what we
really want to communicate and takes me to what we have presented in
OUI. We have Core OpenStack Projects and then a whole community of
additional projects that support cloud function
On 19/06/17 07:32 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> as an aside, in telemetry project, we did something somewhat similar
>> when we renamed/rebranded to telemetry from ceilometer. we wrote several
>> notes to the ML, had a few blog posts, fixed the docs, mentioned the new
>> project structure in our p
On 16/06/17 04:32 +, gordon chung wrote:
On 15/06/17 06:28 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
i see, so this is less an existential question of 'what is openstack'
> and more 'how to differentiate governance projects from a random repo
> created last weekend'
>
> this might have been just me, but bi
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:45 PM Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> [...]
> > I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
> > projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
> > "Projects hosted on OpenSt
;
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 14:57
> To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" >
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent"
> terminology
>
> Sean Dague wrote:
> &g
On Fri, Jun 16 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> I should have made it clearer in my original post that this discussion
> actually originated at the Board+TC+UC workshop in Boston, as part of
> the "better communicating what is openstack" subgroup.
This is still such a vague problem statement that it
Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 6/15/2017 9:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are
>> deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through
>> that. But reality is, the majority of the rest of the world is confused,
>> and
On 15/06/17 22:35, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>
>> For me it's one of the most annoying yet challenging/interesting
>> aspects: free software development is as much about community and
>> politics as it is actual software development (perhaps more so).
>
On Thu, Jun 15 2017, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> One of the *most* common complaints the TC gets from outside the
> contributor community is that people do not understand what projects
> are part of OpenStack and what parts are not. We have a clear
> definition of that in our minds (the projects that h
On Fri, Jun 16 2017, gordon chung wrote:
> *sigh* so this is why we can't have nice things :p
>
> as an aside, in telemetry project, we did something somewhat similar
> when we renamed/rebranded to telemetry from ceilometer. we wrote several
> notes to the ML, had a few blog posts, fixed the doc
On 15/06/17 06:28 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> i see, so this is less an existential question of 'what is openstack'
>> > and more 'how to differentiate governance projects from a random repo
>> > created last weekend'
>> >
>> > this might have been just me, but big tent was exactly 'big tent ==
>
I'm confused by the proposal; you've made a 1-1 substitution of "big tent"
with "openstack project" and then there are some "openstack hosted
projects".
How does that clarify the situation?
It does not help me answer the question "Is Trove part of OpenStack?" with
any more clarity than before.
S
Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2017-06-15 20:24:06 +:
>
> On 15/06/17 03:23 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >
> > We are very open with our hosting, allowing projects that have not
> > yet, and may never, sign up to be governed by the TC to use our
> > infrastructure services. We expect th
On 2017-06-15 16:35:15 -0500 (-0500), Ed Leafe wrote:
[...]
> I'm expecting responses that "of course you don't care", or
> "OpenStack is people, and you're hurting our feelings!". So flame
> away!
Nah. Now SoylentStack on the other hand, that one _is_ people but
have you actually tried it? Not ve
On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> For me it's one of the most annoying yet challenging/interesting
> aspects: free software development is as much about community and
> politics as it is actual software development (perhaps more so).
Another way to look at it is how we see our
-
From: Rochelle Grober [mailto:rochelle.gro...@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 3:21 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology
OK. So, our naming is like brandin
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:56:30PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-06-15 11:48:42 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > We took that tradeoff before and have suffered as a result. I'd say
> > it's the cost of getting a project under governance.
>
> Well, sort of. We took the slightly l
On 2017-06-15 15:22:14 -0500 (-0500), Matt Riedemann wrote:
[...]
> God I feel like I waste an inordinate amount of time each week
> reading about what new process or thing we're going to call
> something, rather than actually working on getting stuff done for
> the release or reviewing changes. I'
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 6/15/2017 9:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>> Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are
>> deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through
>> that. But reality is, the majority of the r
On 15/06/17 03:23 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> We are very open with our hosting, allowing projects that have not
> yet, and may never, sign up to be governed by the TC to use our
> infrastructure services. We expect them to be related in some way,
> but we have even imported projects when we've
On 6/15/2017 9:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Obviously we are not the target audience for that term. I think we are
deep enough in OpenStack and technically-focused enough to see through
that. But reality is, the majority of the rest of the world is confused,
and needs help figuring it out. Giving
OK. So, our naming is like branding. We are techies -- not good at marketing.
But, gee, the foundation has a marketing team. And they end up fielding a lot
of the confusing questions from companies not deeply entrenched in the
OpenStack Dev culture. Perhaps it would be worth explaining what
Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2017-06-15 18:56:22 +:
>
> On 15/06/17 02:05 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Example from https://www.meetup.com/openstack/events/237621777/
> > "Platform9 recently open-sourced Project Mors and VM HA as part of the
> > OpenStack Big Tent initiative."
>
On 15/06/17 02:05 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Example from https://www.meetup.com/openstack/events/237621777/
> "Platform9 recently open-sourced Project Mors and VM HA as part of the
> OpenStack Big Tent initiative."
ah i see, i imagine you could correct those who are corporate sponsors
(and
Sorry, re-reading my email :)
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, gordon chung wrote:
>
>
> On 15/06/17 01:17 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> [DIMS] Tons of folks confused about "Big-Tent", folks are confusing
>> that label with "projects under governance".
What i meant was "Folks are equating Big-T
On 15/06/17 01:17 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> [DIMS] Tons of folks confused about "Big-Tent", folks are confusing
> that label with "projects under governance".
wait, the big tent isn't the projects under governance? that's what i
thought it was based on all the noise... more confused than i
First of all, we definitely need that distinction to be clear.
Second, what are incentives to actually be an OpenStack project?
1. TC oversight - it's more a requirement than incentive
2. PTG space - definitely incentive
...anything else?
What else? TC has an important role, we need oversight to k
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:01 PM, gordon chung wrote:
>
>
> On 15/06/17 11:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> The purpose (my 2 cents) is to highlight what projects are under
>> governance and those that are not.
>
> going down the rabbit hole, what does it mean to be under governance?
> projects th
ursday, 15 June 2017 at 18:36
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent"
terminology
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:41:30PM +, Tim Bell wrote:
> OpenStack Nucleus and Open
On 15/06/17 11:28 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> The purpose (my 2 cents) is to highlight what projects are under
> governance and those that are not.
going down the rabbit hole, what does it mean to be under governance?
projects that want to use the openstack brand and were, at the time of
acc
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:41:30PM +, Tim Bell wrote:
> OpenStack Nucleus and OpenStack Electrons?
>
> Tim
>
Hah, love it!
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ
Not touching the separate gerrit topic, but I genuinely like the "community"
name. In my opinion it very well covers the "projects not governed by TC"
definition.
Regards, Kirill
> Le 15 июня 2017 г. à 18:28, Davanum Srinivas a écrit :
>
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:17 AM, gordon chung wrot
Please note that this ended up being discussed during (and before and
after) the TC office hour today on #openstack-tc:
For those interested, see:
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2017-06-15.log.html#t2017-06-15T13:00:53
TL;DR: We are still deep in initial d
On 2017-06-15 11:07:11 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
> I do kind of wonder if we returned the stackforge or
> friends-of-openstack or whatever to the github namespace when we
> mirrored if it would clear a bunch of things up for people. It would
> just need to be an extra piece of info in
On 2017-06-15 11:48:42 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> We took that tradeoff before and have suffered as a result. I'd say
> it's the cost of getting a project under governance.
Well, sort of. We took the slightly less work (for the Infra team)
approach of renaming repos within a single G
Jeremy,
We took that tradeoff before and have suffered as a result. I'd say
it's the cost of getting a project under governance.
-- Dims
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-06-15 11:28:23 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> [...]
>> Maybe we should call those
On 06/15/2017 08:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
infrastructure ultimate madness)
or... OpenStack Stadium, shortened.
_
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
> I do kind of wonder if we returned the stackforge or
> friends-of-openstack or whatever to the github namespace when we
> mirrored if it would clear a bunch of things up for people. It would
> just need to be an extra piece of info in our pro
g"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent"
terminology
Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted ef
On 2017-06-15 11:28:23 -0400 (-0400), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
[...]
> Maybe we should call those not under governance as "community"
> projects, aggregate these under say community.openstack.org also run a
> second gerrit instance (community-git.openstack.org ?) so the
> separation is clear and dis
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:17 AM, gordon chung wrote:
>
>
> On 15/06/17 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
>>> > "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
>>> > else?" Why m
On 15/06/17 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm still unconvinced a term is needed for this. Can't we just have
>> > "OpenStack Projects" (those under TC governance) and "everything
>> > else?" Why must the existence of any term require a term for its
>> > opposi
On 06/15/2017 10:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
>>> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
>>> "Projects
On 15/06/17 07:03 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> Part of the issue is that the meaning and value of being an
> "OpenStack project" (an "official" one) is increasingly diffuse.
> I suspect that if we could make that more concrete then things like
> names would be easier to decide. Some things we might
Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> [...]
>> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
>> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
>> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side
On 2017-06-15 11:15:36 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
> projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
> "Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
> still under the opens
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
> inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in
> town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended up
> pro
On 15/06/17 14:09 +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2017-06-15 14:57:20 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call th
On 15/06/17 11:15 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
"Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). W
On 2017-06-15 14:57:20 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> An alternative would be to give "the OpenStack project infrastructure"
> some kind of a brand name (say, "Opium", for OpenStack project
> infrastructure ultimate madness) and then call the hosted projects
> "Opium projects". Rename
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:57:20PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
> > [...]
> > I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> > "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
> > that aren't official projects. It may be too inf
Just my .02,
I agree with those who have said distinction is still difficult with
initial thoughts and possibly fleshing out more clearly how that would be
handled - opium branding, questions/criteria proposed by Chris, etc. - can
address the identified potential confusion. I like the idea of bran
Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was
> "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts
> that aren't official projects. It may be too informal, but I do think
> the OpenStack-Hosted vs. OpenStack might still mix
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:06:17PM +0100, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >
> >>I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
> >>projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
>
On 06/15/2017 05:15 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
> inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in
> town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended up
> producing was
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Chris Dent wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
"Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
still un
An [official] OpenStack project is also a hosted project by OpenStack
[infra].
I agree that "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very distinct from
"OpenStack projects". Furthermore the "hosted" part is not unique to either
category.
I don't have an immediate suggestion for an alternative, but I mi
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I'd like to propose that we introduce a new concept: "OpenStack-Hosted
projects". There would be "OpenStack projects" on one side, and
"Projects hosted on OpenStack infrastructure" on the other side (all
still under the openstack/ git repo prefix). We'l
+1000
very clearly.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Neil Jerram wrote:
>
>> Just an immediate reaction: to me "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very
>> distinct from "OpenStack projects". So with that terminology I think there
>> will still be c
On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Neil Jerram wrote:
Just an immediate reaction: to me "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very
distinct from "OpenStack projects". So with that terminology I think there will
still be confusion (perhaps more).
This was my reaction as well. For people who misunderstood of
Just an immediate reaction: to me "OpenStack-Hosted projects" is not very
distinct from "OpenStack projects". So with that terminology I think there
will still be confusion (perhaps more).
(Or did I misunderstand your new proposal?)
Regards - Neil
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:16 AM Thierry Carre
+1000
Thanks for the proposal, " OpenStack projects" vs "OpenStack-Hosted
projects" is more clear for everyone. That also helps people uderstand the
scope of OpenStack projects when evaluating the maturity of OpenStack.
We would gain more benifit. I like the idea.
2017-06-15 17:15 GMT+08:00 Th
Hi everyone,
Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure,
inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in
town, was not working anymore. The "integrated release" that we ended up
producing was not really integrated, already too big to be installed by
92 matches
Mail list logo
