Mohammed Naser <mnaser@vexxhost.com> writes:
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 4:59 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:
On 2019-05-30 15:23:43 -0400 (-0400), Mohammed Naser wrote: [...]
I've requested to move x/osops-* to openstack-operators/* in GitHub so that I can setup the appropriate mirroring in post pipeline (and then propose a patch to rename things inside Gerrit as well). [...]
My only real concern (voiced already with perhaps far less brevity in #openstack-tc) is that we should avoid leaving the impression that software written by "operators" isn't good enough for the openstack/ Git namespace. I want to be sure we remain clear that OpenStack was, and still is, written by its operators/users, not by some separate and nebulous cloud of "developers."
I would love to personally make it live under the openstack/ namespace however I do feel like that does make it 'pretty darn official' and the quality of the tools there isn't something we probably want to put our name under yet. A lot of it is really old (2+ years old) and it probably needs a bit of time to get into a state where it's something that we can make official.
Oh, my. No. Just, no. All software starts out as crap, and most of the stuff running in production all around the world is still crap to some degree or another (my own code very much not excluded). The parts that are less crap today got that way through the efforts of people collaborating to improve them from the beginning (thank you to everyone who has reviewed my code), not by waiting until they were "good enough" to share. The tools in the osops repo are not special in this regard, and we shouldn't treat them as though they are.
Personally, I think that repo should be nothing but a 'buffer' between project features and tools needed by deployers, a lot of the things there seem to be there because of bugs (i.e. orphaned resource cleanup -- which should ideally be cleaned up by the service itself or warned there), clean-up disks for deleted VMs that were not removed, etc.
That's a great vision. I love the idea of a "sandbox" (or several) for exploring those sorts of improvements.
We already have plenty of repositories under openstack/ which are maintained by SIGs and UC WGs/teams, so not everything there needs to be a deliverable governed by the OpenStack TC anyway. If this really is a collection of software written and maintained by the operators of OpenStack then it should be fine alongside the rest of the official OpenStack software. If it's not, then perhaps calling it the "openstack-operators" organization is... misleading?
My vote is a hard "no" on an openstack-operators/ namespace because I'm tired of perpetuating the idea that "operators" cannot (or should not) be "contributors" to openstack/. They *must* be contributors, because that's the only way open source works over the log term. -- Doug