Open Stack

On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 11:19 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 11:59 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >> Second it's at a very different evolution/maturity point (20 years old
> >> vs. 0-4 years old for OpenStack projects).
> > 
> > Yes, but I thought I covered this in the email: you can see that at the
> > 4 year point in its lifecycle, the kernel was behaving very differently
> > (and in fact more similar to OpenStack).  The question I thought was
> > still valid is whether anything was learnable from the way the kernel
> > evolved later.  I think the key issue, which you seem to have in
> > OpenStack is that the separate develop/stabilise phases caused
> > frustration to build up in our system which (nine years later) led the
> > kernel to adopt the main branch stabilisation with overlapping subsystem
> > development cycle.
> 
> I agree with you: the evolution the kernel went through is almost a
> natural law, and I know we won't stay in the current model forever. I'm
> just not sure we have reached the level of general stability that makes
> it possible to change *just now*. I welcome brainstorming and discussion
> on future evolutions, though, and intend to lead a cross-project session
> discussion on that in Vancouver.

OK, I'll be in Vancouver, so happy to come and give input from
participating in the kernel process (for a bit longer than I care to
admit to ...).

One interesting thing might be to try and work out where roughly
OpenStack is on the project trajectory.  It's progressing much more
rapidly than the kernel (by 4 years in, the kernel didn't even have
source control), so the release crisis it took the kernel 12 years to
reach might be a bit closer than people imagine.

James


James