Open Stack

Kurt Griffiths wrote:
> Kudos to Balaji for working so hard on this. I really appreciate his candid feedback on both frameworks.

Indeed, that analysis is very much appreciated.

>From the Technical Committee perspective, we put a high weight on a
factor that was not included in the report results: consistency and
convergence between projects we commonly release in an integrated manner
every 6 months. There was historically a lot of deviation, but as we add
more projects that deviation is becoming more costly. We want developers
to be able to jump from one project to another easily, and we want
convergence from an operators perspective.

Individual projects are obviously allowed to pick the best tool in their
toolbox. But the TC may also decide to let projects live out of the
"integrated release" if we feel they would add too much divergence in.

> After reviewing the report below, I would recommend that Marconi
> continue using Falcon for the v1.1 API and then re-evaluate Pecan for
> v2.0 or possibly look at using swob.

The report (and your email below) makes a compelling argument that
Falcon is a better match for Marconi's needs (or for a data-plane API)
than Pecan currently is. My question would be, can Pecan be improved to
also cover Marconi's use case ? Could we have the best of both worlds
(an appropriate tool *and* convergence) ?

If the answer is "yes, probably", then it might be an option to delay
inclusion in the integrated release so that we don't add (even
temporary) divergence. If the answer is "definitely no", then we'll have
to choose between convergence and functionality.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)