Open Stack

All,

I would very much appreciate hearing from the committee about positives and negatives raised during the summit about DefCore.  To me, silence means we have to slow down and get more feedback.  So even a "+1" on this email would be helpful.

Overall, the people like the approach and results.  I got only favorable comments about how we are determining core and the way we are driving the process.  I heard no objections to the criteria or resulting small-core.

Here are the issues raised (feel free to reply with elaboration):


1.       Swift capabilities are scored as core.  This will force the question of which parts of Swift are designated.  If 0% then other object stores just need API compatibility.  If 100% then we're going to have to address vendors who want to ship Swift alternatives without the code.   At this point, there's nothing in between.



2.       Nova Docker is an interesting use case because Docker does not use Glance or Cinder in the same way as libvirt Nova does.  This means that a Docker cloud would not pass the core tests for Glance or Cinder as currently structured.



3.       We need more technical community input into capabilities grouping.  Troy did great but we need to transfer ownership.



4.       We should use the Ice House tempest even for Havana because of structural improvements made to the latest Tempest code.

Rob
______________________________
Rob Hirschfeld
Sr. Distinguished Cloud Solution Architect
Dell | Cloud Edge, Data Center Solutions
cell +1 512 909-7219 blog robhirschfeld.com, twitter @zehicle
Please note, I am based in the CENTRAL (-6) time zone

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20140519/a1a10e9d/attachment.html>