<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/24/2016 11:13 AM, Dean Troyer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOJFoEusxAwqxkC+cdndhrNskkaYmWaY3KyKtuhs6sF2BZKgnw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:20 AM,
Flavio Percoco <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:flavio@redhat.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:flavio@redhat.com">flavio@redhat.com</a></a>></span> wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So, just to make sure I'm making myself clear, I believe
we should go with<br>
option #2 in Thierry's comment from May 23 11:3 on this[0]
review. While I'm not<br>
entirely opposed to #1 I think #2 is better for us at this
point in time. Here's<br>
a quote of Thierry's comment:<br>
<br>
"To summarize my view on this, I think our only two
options here are (1)<br>
approve the addition of golang (with caveats on
where it should be used<br>
to try to minimize useless churn), or (2) precise
the line between<br>
'openstack projects' and 'dependencies of openstack
projects' in a way<br>
that makes it obvious that components requiring such
optimization as to<br>
require golang (or any other such language) should
be developed as<br>
dependencies"<br>
<br>
My main motivation is that I still believe option #1 will
have a negative impact<br>
on the community and, perhaps more importantly, I don't
think it'll help<br>
reaching the goal we've been talking about in this thread.
Many people have been<br>
asking for focus and I think #2 will do that, whereas #1
will open the doors to<br>
a different set of problems and complexities that won't
help with keeping the focus.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Option #2 without the followup of actually evaluating
and removing things that do not fit is really Option #3,
do nothing. Which is what I am afraid will happen. No
renewed focus, no growth, no goal.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the language front, since we want focus, the exiting
decisions re languages should also be part of that
re-evaluation for focus. It sure feels like JavaScript is
in exactly the same boat as folks fear Golang will be here
(a special case, domain-specific, division of community
(ask Horizon devs)). And Bash, well, that isn't even a
language.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Just $0.02 - if you want to support a language, then it would seem
like having a full SDK for that language would be a first step so
that people inside and outside the community can use the language in
a supported manner. With an SDK, it seems like everyone will just
reinvent the wheel. That would also seem to further the goal of
using the language as the community intends - whether for services,
clients, or UI - since the SDK would be targeted appropriately. If
no SDK, then special casing would seem to the proper place.<br>
<br>
Again, $0.02<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
</body>
</html>