Open Stack

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:51 PM Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2020, at 4:50 PM, Julia Kreger <juliaashleykreger at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:27 AM Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2020, at 1:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-08 10:04:25 +0200 (+0200), Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Why *can't* OpenShift include OpenStack projects? I haven't seen
> this adequately explained.
>
>
> It's less of a technical issue, but more of misunderstanding that
> including an OpenStack project does not involve literally
> installing OpenStack. And no matter what we think, for a lot of
> people OpenStack==Nova (another marketing issue to address?).
>
> [...]
>
> I don't understand why that would make a difference in this case,
> unless you're saying that the people who make architectural
> decisions about what's included in OpenShift have no actual
> familiarity with Ironic and OpenStack. If you know anyone who works
> at that company, can you help them understand the difference?
>
>
> This part of the argument has completely lost me. OpenShift 4 already includes Ironic. I’m not aware of any challenges that arose while making that happen that would have been solved or even made easier by Ironic being its own OIP.
>
>
> I'm sure one time challenges would have been greater initially, but
> ongoing headaches would be less IMHO. All headaches there are a result
> of how people want to do their jobs and achieve/interpret goals with
> perceptions while trying to match that up to policy and procedural
> frameworks. In essence, without further delineation, it is an uphill
> battle that focuses on finding the string "OpenStack" and directing it
> to that process.
>
>
> That may be true, but those problems are internal to Red Hat, aren’t they?
>
>

In terms of OpenShift the product consuming Ironic, absolutely. But
that doesn't change the larger picture reasons as to why this thread
started.

>
> On one hand, large distributions want us to have stable branches
> every year or two. Even what we have is too much.
>
> On the other - we have small consumers who could benefit from just
> pulling the latest(ish) release and knowing that if a serous bug
> is found there, they won't have to update to the next feature (and
> potentially major) release.
>
> [...]
>
> This sounds like a problem shared by, well, basically every other
> project in OpenStack too. Perhaps it's an opportunity to collaborate
> on finding solutions.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
>
>