Open Stack

Joshua,

why wait? Why not just help Renat with his research on that integration and
bring your own vision to the table? Write some 1-page architecture
description on how Mistral can be built on top of TaskFlow and we discuss
pros and cons. In would be much more productive.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at yahoo-inc.com>wrote:

>  Thanks Renat,
>
>  I'll keep waiting, and hoping that we can figure this out for everyone's
> benefit. Because in the end we are all much stronger working together and
> much weaker when not.
>
> Sent from my really tiny device...
>
> On Mar 13, 2014, at 11:41 PM, "Renat Akhmerov" <rakhmerov at mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>  Folks,
>
>  Mistral and TaskFlow are significantly different technologies. With
> different set of capabilities, with different target audience.
>
>  We may not be doing enough to clarify all the differences, I admit that.
> The challenge here is that people tend to judge having minimal amount of
> information about both things. As always, devil in the details. Stan is
> 100% right, "seems" is not an appropriate word here. Java seems to be
> similar to C++ at the first glance for those who have little or no
> knowledge about them.
>
>  To be more consistent I won't be providing all the general
> considerations that I've been using so far (in etherpads, MLs, in personal
> discussions), it doesn't seem to be working well, at least not with
> everyone. So to make it better, like I said in that different thread: we're
> evaluating TaskFlow now and will share the results. Basically, it's what
> Boris said about what could and could not be implemented in TaskFlow. But
> since the very beginning of the project I never abandoned the idea of using
> TaskFlow some day when it's possible.
>
>  So, again: Joshua, we hear you, we're working in that direction.
>
>
>>>> I'm reminded of
>>>>
>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/RenatAkhmerov/mistral-hong-kong-unconference-trac
>>>> k/2<http://www.slideshare.net/RenatAkhmerov/mistral-hong-kong-unconference-track/2>where it seemed like we were doing much better collaboration, what has
>>>> happened to break this continuity?
>>>>
>>>
>  Not sure why you think something is broken. We just want to finish the
> pilot with all the 'must' things working in it. This is a plan. Then we can
> revisit and change absolutely everything. Remember, to the great extent
> this is research. Joshua, this is what we talked about and agreed on many
> times. I know you might be anxious about that given the fact it's taking
> more time than planned but our vision of the project has drastically
> evolved and gone far far beyond the initial Convection proposal. So the
> initial idea of POC is no longer relevant. Even though we finished the
> first version in December, we realized it wasn't something that should have
> been shared with the community since it lacked some essential things.
>
>
>  Renat Akhmerov
> @ Mirantis Inc.
>
>   _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Sincerely yours
Stanislav (Stan) Lagun
Senior Developer
Mirantis
35b/3, Vorontsovskaya St.
Moscow, Russia
Skype: stanlagun
www.mirantis.com
slagun at mirantis.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140314/1fb2d8d2/attachment.html>