[murano][tc] Project Retirement
Hi folks, Today, at the TC weekly meeting, it was brought up that Murano was not very active over the past few years and most likely has had a major amount of bitrot. The community is not able to reach the current PTL of the project either. Personally, I think that at this point, Murano is a bit past it's time. We've got a lot more developments in application deployment nowadays, OpenStack offers things like Magnum to get a Kubernetes cluster which you can run workloads on via Helm, or projects like Zun offer serverlerss containers directly, making a lot of what Murano used to do not so helpful in the current landscape. I'm sending this email to discuss/propose the idea of retiring the project. Regards, Mohammed -- Mohammed Naser VEXXHOST, Inc.
Mohammed Naser wrote:
Today, at the TC weekly meeting, it was brought up that Murano was not very active over the past few years and most likely has had a major amount of bitrot. The community is not able to reach the current PTL of the project either.
Personally, I think that at this point, Murano is a bit past it's time. We've got a lot more developments in application deployment nowadays, OpenStack offers things like Magnum to get a Kubernetes cluster which you can run workloads on via Helm, or projects like Zun offer serverlerss containers directly, making a lot of what Murano used to do not so helpful in the current landscape.
I'm sending this email to discuss/propose the idea of retiring the project.
+1 due to: - low adoption - peripheral nature (no other project depends on it) - superseded by other software distribution strategies (containers) zhurong has done a great job at keeping it alive from a release standpoint, but I have no idea how usable it actually is today. -- Thierry
Hi, Sorry for my late response, I am a little bit busy for internal works recently. If TC has decided to retire murano, I have no objection. But If TC think someone can keep maintain it and not retire, I am glad to keeping maintain Murano project. Please reconsider this. Thanks, Rong Zhu Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org>于2021年8月14日 周六22:41写道：
Today, at the TC weekly meeting, it was brought up that Murano was not very active over the past few years and most likely has had a major amount of bitrot. The community is not able to reach the current PTL of the project either.
Personally, I think that at this point, Murano is a bit past it's time. We've got a lot more developments in application deployment nowadays, OpenStack offers things like Magnum to get a Kubernetes cluster which you can run workloads on via Helm, or projects like Zun offer serverlerss containers directly, making a lot of what Murano used to do not so helpful in the current landscape.
I'm sending this email to discuss/propose the idea of retiring the
Mohammed Naser wrote: project.
+1 due to:
- low adoption - peripheral nature (no other project depends on it) - superseded by other software distribution strategies (containers)
zhurong has done a great job at keeping it alive from a release standpoint, but I have no idea how usable it actually is today.
-- Thierry
-- Thanks, Rong Zhu
Rong Zhu wrote:
Sorry for my late response, I am a little bit busy for internal works recently.
If TC has decided to retire murano, I have no objection. But If TC think someone can keep maintain it and not retire, I am glad to keeping maintain Murano project. Please reconsider this.
For the record, I don't think there is an urgent need to retire Murano as long as it is maintained, fills community goals, hits release requirements, and is functional. Like mnaser said, it is a bit off in the modern landscape of application deployment technology, so I don't think it's a priority anymore -- if its continued existence blocked people from focusing on more critical components, I would support removing it. But based on Rong Zhu's response I'm not sure that's the case. -- Thierry
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 3:08 PM Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org> wrote:
Rong Zhu wrote:
Sorry for my late response, I am a little bit busy for internal works recently.
If TC has decided to retire murano, I have no objection. But If TC think someone can keep maintain it and not retire, I am glad to keeping maintain Murano project. Please reconsider this.
For the record, I don't think there is an urgent need to retire Murano as long as it is maintained, fills community goals, hits release requirements, and is functional.
I disagree. I think we are giving it a false sense of usability. It likely can do "something" but there does not seem to exist enough workforce to triage and fix bugs [1] for quite some time. And some [2] look like users are having a hard time using it. This was also observed by me with my Kolla hat on - folks reported to us that they can't get Murano stuff running and we could only spread our hands. (-: It also does not seem to have had any new features since at least Stein. [3] We can also take a look at stackalytics [4]. Most person-day effort was eaten up by community-wide changes. My POV is that OpenStack is still a kind of quality badge that applies to projects under its umbrella. Seemingly, it's also the perspective of folks outside of the close community (ask anyone doing consulting ;-) ). And thus we should retire projects which did not stand the test of time. I am thankful for Rong Zhu's efforts to keep the project alive but it seems the world has moved on to solutions based on different technologies, as mentioned by you (Thierry) and Mohammed. And we, as OpenStack, should accept that and focus on better integration with those. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bugs?orderby=-id&start=0 [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bug/1817538 [3] https://docs.openstack.org/releasenotes/murano/index.html [4] https://www.stackalytics.io/?module=murano-group&metric=person-day&release=xena -yoctozepto
Like mnaser said, it is a bit off in the modern landscape of application deployment technology, so I don't think it's a priority anymore -- if its continued existence blocked people from focusing on more critical components, I would support removing it. But based on Rong Zhu's response I'm not sure that's the case.
-- Thierry
I am agree with all of you, But most of the projects are lacking of contributors. Keep or remove Murano can not make things better. I know some people are using Murano internal, they submited a bugfix sometimes. Remove Murano can not make those people focus on other projects, But will let those people out and a PTL out. Thanks, Rong Zhu Radosław Piliszek <radoslaw.piliszek@gmail.com>于2021年8月19日 周四00:36写道：
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 3:08 PM Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org> wrote:
Rong Zhu wrote:
Sorry for my late response, I am a little bit busy for internal works recently.
If TC has decided to retire murano, I have no objection. But If TC
think
someone can keep maintain it and not retire, I am glad to keeping maintain Murano project. Please reconsider this.
For the record, I don't think there is an urgent need to retire Murano as long as it is maintained, fills community goals, hits release requirements, and is functional.
I disagree. I think we are giving it a false sense of usability. It likely can do "something" but there does not seem to exist enough workforce to triage and fix bugs [1] for quite some time. And some [2] look like users are having a hard time using it. This was also observed by me with my Kolla hat on - folks reported to us that they can't get Murano stuff running and we could only spread our hands. (-: It also does not seem to have had any new features since at least Stein. [3]
We can also take a look at stackalytics [4]. Most person-day effort was eaten up by community-wide changes.
My POV is that OpenStack is still a kind of quality badge that applies to projects under its umbrella. Seemingly, it's also the perspective of folks outside of the close community (ask anyone doing consulting ;-) ). And thus we should retire projects which did not stand the test of time.
I am thankful for Rong Zhu's efforts to keep the project alive but it seems the world has moved on to solutions based on different technologies, as mentioned by you (Thierry) and Mohammed. And we, as OpenStack, should accept that and focus on better integration with those.
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bugs?orderby=-id&start=0 [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bug/1817538 [3] https://docs.openstack.org/releasenotes/murano/index.html [4] https://www.stackalytics.io/?module=murano-group&metric=person-day&release=xena
-yoctozepto
Like mnaser said, it is a bit off in the modern landscape of application deployment technology, so I don't think it's a priority anymore -- if its continued existence blocked people from focusing on more critical components, I would support removing it. But based on Rong Zhu's response I'm not sure that's the case.
-- Thierry
-- Thanks, Rong Zhu
---- On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 19:07:33 -0500 Rong Zhu <aaronzhu1121@gmail.com> wrote ----
I am agree with all of you, But most of the projects are lacking of contributors. Keep or remove Murano can not make things better. I know some people are using Murano internal, they submited a bugfix sometimes. Remove Murano can not make those people focus on other projects, But will let those people out and a PTL out.
Thanks, Rong Zhu for all your hard work and to continue to maintain it. In today's TC meeting, we discussed it and agreed not to retire the Murano project[1]. [1] https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2021/tc.2021-08-19-15.00.log.html#l... -gmann
Thanks,Rong Zhu
Radosław Piliszek <radoslaw.piliszek@gmail.com>于2021年8月19日 周四00:36写道： On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 3:08 PM Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org> wrote:
Rong Zhu wrote:
Sorry for my late response, I am a little bit busy for internal works recently.
If TC has decided to retire murano, I have no objection. But If TC think someone can keep maintain it and not retire, I am glad to keeping maintain Murano project. Please reconsider this.
For the record, I don't think there is an urgent need to retire Murano as long as it is maintained, fills community goals, hits release requirements, and is functional.
I disagree. I think we are giving it a false sense of usability. It likely can do "something" but there does not seem to exist enough workforce to triage and fix bugs [1] for quite some time. And some [2] look like users are having a hard time using it. This was also observed by me with my Kolla hat on - folks reported to us that they can't get Murano stuff running and we could only spread our hands. (-: It also does not seem to have had any new features since at least Stein. [3]
We can also take a look at stackalytics [4]. Most person-day effort was eaten up by community-wide changes.
My POV is that OpenStack is still a kind of quality badge that applies to projects under its umbrella. Seemingly, it's also the perspective of folks outside of the close community (ask anyone doing consulting ;-) ). And thus we should retire projects which did not stand the test of time.
I am thankful for Rong Zhu's efforts to keep the project alive but it seems the world has moved on to solutions based on different technologies, as mentioned by you (Thierry) and Mohammed. And we, as OpenStack, should accept that and focus on better integration with those.
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bugs?orderby=-id&start=0 [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bug/1817538 [3] https://docs.openstack.org/releasenotes/murano/index.html [4] https://www.stackalytics.io/?module=murano-group&metric=person-day&release=xena
-yoctozepto
Like mnaser said, it is a bit off in the modern landscape of application deployment technology, so I don't think it's a priority anymore -- if its continued existence blocked people from focusing on more critical components, I would support removing it. But based on Rong Zhu's response I'm not sure that's the case.
-- Thierry
-- Thanks, Rong Zhu
participants (5)
-
Ghanshyam Mann
-
Mohammed Naser
-
Radosław Piliszek
-
Rong Zhu
-
Thierry Carrez