Thanks a lot, Tobias

I’m not negative or against a rewrite per se, what I’m most afraid of is community fragmentation and

a 10 year migration effort similar to for example Python2 to Python3 and placing the maintenance burden

on other projects to support v3 and keystone-ng (v4?) for the next 10 years or even more.

I guess one of the points of misunderstanding is that it is not only about Rust per se, it is about the fact that due to the changes in the modern standards we can't cope with it within v3 without breaking it dramatically. So one of the things - we have no choice but to start work on v4. With my SDK and client tooling hat I can say definitely - microversions make it only worse. But back to the point - it does not make a difference whether v4 is implemented in Rust or python from the normal api version lifecycle point of view. It gives us, however, the possibility to do foundational changes while doing that.

I think it was inevitable that this kind of discussions and proposal for using “new" modern technology would

start sooner rather than later and I think it’s only natural, evolution if you will, and if there are people willing

to do the work we should overall embrace that moving forward.

The primary win here seems to be performance, which is great, hopefully less energy consumed world-wide

for all the gazillion of Keystone API requests – but it’s critical that we look at the history here, learn from it

and not repeat some of the horrific migration stories we’ve had in the past. It’s not a silver bullet, it doesn’t really

solve anything related to third-party dependencies, we need to follow the same process there and I suspect vetting

dependencies in the Rust ecosystem is much harder due to more changes but that’s just a guess.

Adding another language is hard; it’s not only about the code itself, we’ve had this discussion before around Go which

didn’t solidify into anything in the ecosystem, in my view we’ve already started to see small scale fragmentation

of projects moving in and out under the OpenStack umbrella, which in itself is one of the (although smaller) reasons

I’m for more broader change, we don’t want stagnation we want innovation.

I’m actually very positive moving the effort under the OpenStack umbrella but what will be done to be successful

attracting Rust developers into the ecosystem and maintain all the tooling and infrastructure required to build and

release it?

I see your point. Right now I see a traction for people working at major vendors who are getting those skills. On the other side - when currently the project is maintained by 1-2 people it is not really that different.

I commend your entusiasm and willingness to bring this up with the community, I think we all want progress but

progress without a plan is just a dream.

It was mentioned in the message, currently we make an announcement and call people to participate. Perhaps ones who see the point of being interested in getting Rust experience would be interested. Or CSPs who need the features come on board and start supporting it more. In the meanwhile I continue development as I was doing before.

The plan exists, but it assumes the idea would have followers. Without them either nobody wants that or nobody needs that. Then the plan stays a dream. Right.