Open Stack

Please see inline.


On 17/01/17 9:36, Tim Bell wrote:
>
>> On 17 Jan 2017, at 01:19, Brandon B. Jozsa <bjozsa at jinkit.com
>> <mailto:bjozsa at jinkit.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Inline
>>
>> On January 16, 2017 at 7:04:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M (kevin.fox at pnnl.gov
>> <mailto:kevin.fox at pnnl.gov>) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not stating that the big tent should be abolished and we go back
>>> to the way things were. But I also know the status quo is not
>>> working either. How do we fix this? Anyone have any thoughts? 
>>>
>>
>> Are we really talking about Barbican or has the conversation drifted
>> towards Big Tent concerns?
>>
>> Perhaps we can flip this thread on it’s head and more positively
>> discuss what can be done to improve Barbican, or ways that we can
>> collaboratively address any issues. I’m almost wondering if some
>> opinions about Barbican are even coming from its heavy users, or
>> users who’ve placed much time into developing/improving Barbican? If
>> not, let’s collectively change that.
>>
>
> When we started deploying Magnum, there was a pre-req for Barbican to
> store the container engine secrets. We were not so enthusiastic since
> there was no puppet configuration or RPM packaging.  However, with a
> few upstream contributions, these are now all resolved.
>
> the operator documentation has improved, HA deployment is working and
> the unified openstack client support is now available in the latest
> versions.
Tim - where exactly is this documentation?
>
> These extra parts may not be a direct deliverable of the code
> contributions itself but they make a major difference on deployability
> which Barbican now satisfies. Big tent projects should aim to cover
> these areas also if they wish to thrive in the community.
>
> Tim
>
>>
>>> Thanks, 
>>> Kevin 
>>
>> Brandon B. Jozsa
>>

-- 
Best Regards,
Maish Saidel-Keesing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170117/c9d14bbc/attachment.html>