On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Vladimir Kuklin wrote:
> Folks, I sent a reply a couple of days ago, but somehow it got lost. The
> original message goes below
>
> Folks
>
> It is essentially true that Fuel is no longer being developed as almost 99%
> of people have left the project and are worki
Vova,
I really hope and wish for a reboot!.
Please do note that the change proposed is only just a governance repo
change. There is no one here who has proposed any retiring of the fuel
repositories (process for retirement is here - [1]).
Thanks,
Dims
[1] https://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual
Folks, I sent a reply a couple of days ago, but somehow it got lost. The
original message goes below
Folks
It is essentially true that Fuel is no longer being developed as almost 99%
of people have left the project and are working on something else. May be,
in the future, when the dust settles, w
Thanks for the initial feedback everyone.
I proposed the matching governance change at:
https://review.openstack.org/475721
Please comment there if you think it's a good or bad idea.
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
__
OpenStack De
> On Jun 16, 2017, at 07:28, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
> On 06/16/2017 09:57 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the "official
O
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> Regarding all the company efforts to invest in one deployment tool,
> it's going to be super hard to find The OneTrue and convince everyone
> else to work on it.
The idea is not that everyone works on it, it is simply that OpenStack
_does_
On 06/16/2017 09:57 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the "official
OpenStack projects list".
Nice to hear Jay! :)
It was intentional
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the "official
>> OpenStack projects list".
>
> Nice to hear Jay! :)
>
> It was intentional from the beginning to not be in the
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> Shake Chen wrote:
> > HI Vikash
> >
> > I think Kolla is suitable for official project for deployment
>
> Deployment tooling is, by nature, opinionated. You just can't enable
> everything and keep it manageable. As long as people will have
Shake Chen wrote:
> HI Vikash
>
> I think Kolla is suitable for official project for deployment
Deployment tooling is, by nature, opinionated. You just can't enable
everything and keep it manageable. As long as people will have differing
opinions on how OpenStack pieces should be deployed, which
HI Vikash
I think Kolla is suitable for official project for deployment
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Vikash Kumar <
vikash.ku...@oneconvergence.com> wrote:
> I strongly believe Openstack must have any one official project for
> deployment whether its Fuel or anything else. Cutting it short
I strongly believe Openstack must have any one official project for
deployment whether its Fuel or anything else. Cutting it short, talking to
number of people across industry/academic/government institutions, got a
sense that its necessary that there should be a official tool more than
Devstack fo
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> I'd fully support the removal of all deployment projects from the "official
> OpenStack projects list".
Nice to hear Jay! :)
It was intentional from the beginning to not be in the deployment
space, we allowed those projects in (not unanimously
On 06/15/2017 11:05 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in
this race.
On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thie
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2017-06-15 12:06:53 -0400:
> On 06/15/2017 11:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Jay Pipes wrote:
> >> While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
> >> projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
> >> a Red H
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
>>
>> Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in this
>> race.
>>
>> On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2
On 2017-06-15 12:05:42 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
> Please see Jeremy's paragraph directly above my response. He
> specifically mentions single-vendor-ness as a reason for removal.
[...]
It is, when the danger of being single-vendor becomes manifest in
that vendor ceasing their interest
On 06/15/2017 11:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Jay Pipes wrote:
While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
a Red Hat project:
http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
http://stackalytics.com
On 06/15/2017 11:56 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in
this race.
On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
I think that, desp
Jay Pipes wrote:
> While I personally agree that Fuel should be moved out of the official
> projects list, I'd like to point out that Triple-O is virtually entirely
> a Red Hat project:
>
> http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group
> http://stackalytics.com/?module=tripleo-group&metric=commits
Full disclosure: I primarily work on TripleO so I do have a horse in
this race.
On 06/15/2017 10:33 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did
On 06/15/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would
be used across the board. It was worth
On 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
[...]
> I think that, despite the efforts of the Fuel team, Fuel did not become
> what we hoped when we made it official: a universal installer that would
> be used across the board. It was worth a try, I'm happy that we tried,
> but I thi
On 15/06/17 10:48 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi everyone,
Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that
have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult
discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd like to discuss
whether we should
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-06-15 10:48:21 +0200:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that
> have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult
> discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd lik
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 07:39:23AM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> +1 to drop Fuel from governance
>
> -- Dims
>
+1 from me too.
Sean
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack
+1 to drop Fuel from governance
-- Dims
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that
> have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult
> discussions, but we need to have
Hi everyone,
Part of reducing OpenStack perceived complexity is to cull projects that
have not delivered on their initial promises. Those are always difficult
discussions, but we need to have them. In this email I'd like to discuss
whether we should no longer consider Fuel an official OpenStack pr
28 matches
Mail list logo
