Open Stack

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020, at 3:38 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>

Snip because I wanted to respond to one specific point made below.

> Now, I do agree that there are steps that can be taken before we go all 
> nuclear. We can definitely work on our own website, we can reduce 
> reliance on oslo, start releasing independently, and so on. I'm 
> wondering what will be left of our participation in OpenStack in the 
> end. Thierry has suggested the role of the TC in ensuring integration. 
> I'm of the opinion that if all stakeholders in Ironic lose interest in 
> Ironic as part of OpenStack, no power will prevent the integration from 
> slowly falling apart.

Opinion from someone that has worked on OpenStack for a long time: I don't think using oslo, sticking to a 6 month release cadence, integration with Nova is what defines "OpenStack". The goal has been to build tools for API driven management of data center resources. When looked at in this way some of the other examples mentioned, Zuul and Gnocchi, don't quite fit. But within that goal even if we aren't using the same underlying libraries or releasing in tight synchronization the involved individuals and projects can learn from each other and help each other in significant ways.

Taking Ironic as the example, I think one of the major ways Ironic can contribute to OpenStack is showing how you can evolve to do things like 1) operate in a standalone fashion to meet user demands 2) remove/refactor/replace existing dependencies like rabbitmq to improve operability and stability 3) rely less on devstack for testing and so on.

Whether or not the proposed split happens isn't up to me, but I'm worried we think that using oslo, integrating with nova, and strict adherence to a 6 month release cycle is what defines OpenStack. What will be left is your participation in the community to not only make management of baremetal servers in the datacenter better, but also networking, and virtualization, and storage and so on.

Clark