Open Stack

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> On 05/05/2017 12:36 PM, Alex Schultz wrote:
>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:16 AM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
>>> On 05/04/2017 11:08 AM, Alex Schultz wrote:
>>>
>>> The general statement of "people care more about features than
>>> usability/stability" gets thrown around a lot. And gets lots of head
>>> nodding. But rarely comes with specifics.
>>>
>>> Can we be specific about what feature work is outpacing the consumers
>>> that don't help with usability/stability?
>>>
>>
>> The cell v2 initial implementation was neither usable or stable (for
>> my definition of stable). Yea you could say 'but it's a work and
>> progress' and I would say, why is it required for the end user then?
>> If I wanted to I could probably go back and go through every project
>> and point out when a feature was added yet we still have a pile of
>> outstanding issues.  As Chris Friesen pointed out in his reply email,
>> there are things out there are specifics if you go looking.  You have
>> to understand that as I'm mainly dealing with having to actually
>> deploy/configure the software, when I see 'new project X' that does
>> 'cool new things Y, Z' it makes me cringe.  Because it's just added
>> complexity for new features that who knows if they are actually going
>> to be consumed by a majority of end users.  I see a lot of new
>> features for edge cases while the core functionally (insert the most
>> used project configuration) still have awkward deployment,
>> configuration and usability issues. But those aren't exciting so
>> people don't want to work on them...
>
> Chris pointed out bugs to partially implemented features that have not
> completed. Those are things that haven't gotten done.
>
> Calling cells v2 an unneeded feature seems kind of a stretch. There was
> so much operator push to get cells v1 merged even though it was wildly
> incomplete, and full of races and very weird unfixable bugs. It was
> merged on user request because many large operators were patching it in,
> out of tree. And cells v2 was exactly a usability and stability path out
> of cells v1.
>

I didn't say it wasn't an unneeded feature. I said the "initial
implementation as not usable or stable". This being due to missing
commands for managing (operator needs) or stable because things had to
change when people actually tried to use them (tooling/workflow
changes).  I understand why we need it (although storing credentials
in a database table makes me cry), it's just that I wish it was more
baked before made a requirement outside of devstack.

> While there may have been bumps in the road getting there, calling it a
> feature unrelated to stability and usability doesn't seem right to me.
> That's more of a "I wish the following bits were done differently."
>

The whole point was that yes, I wish it was released differently such
that it didn't end up being a multiple month affair of bug exposing
and lack of implemented tooling when it was switched to be mandatory.
 That to me was the usability/stability problem.  A feature was made
mandatory without proper understanding of the implications on the end
user.

Thanks,
-Alex

>         -Sean
>
> --
> Sean Dague
> http://dague.net
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev