Open Stack

On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 10:11 +0100, Luke Gorrie wrote:
> On 3 March 2014 18:30, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>         My advice was therefore that you should not wait for that to
>         happen to
>         
>         engage in cooperative behavior, because you don't want to be
>         the first
>         company to get singled out.
> 
> 
> "Cooperative behavior" is vague.

Not really, IMO.

> Case in point: I have not successfully setup 3rd party CI for the ML2
> driver that I've developed on behalf of a vendor.

Please feel free to engage with myself and others on IRC if you have
problems. We had a first meeting on #openstack-meeting yesterday and
have started putting answers to questions about 3rd party CI here:

https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/third-party-ci-workshop

Let me know how we can help you!

>  Does this make me one of your "uncooperative vendors"? 

Of course not. Now, if you were not seeking out any assistance from the
community and instead were talking to a few other companies about just
replacing all of the upstream continuous integration system with
something you wrote yourself, yes, I would say that's being
uncooperative. :)

> Do I need to worry about being fired because somebody at OpenStack
> decides to "name and shame" the company I'm doing the work for and
> make an example? (Is that what the "deprecated neutron drivers list"
> will be used for?)

No. Not having success in setting up a required CI link does not make
you uncooperative. Simply reach out to others in the community for
assistance if you need it.

> If one project official says "driver contributors have to comply with
> X, Y, Z by Icehouse-2" and then another project official says that
> "uncooperative contributors are going to be nailed to the wall" then,
> well, sucks to be contributors.

I think you are over-analyzing this :)

Best,
-jay