Open Stack

Perhaps this is a weighting issue on the capabilities.  When we rated the capabilities for Havana, one of the functions was the equivalent of “in it for the long term.”  These sound like “not”.  But, at the time, at least Neutron was uncertain.  So, an asterisk on those for hindsight and downgrading them in Icehouse precisely for the reason of their long term has become not a future direction?  This would be an excellent test of our ability to modify direction as the project does.

--Rocky

From: rob at zehicle.com [mailto:rob at zehicle.com]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 12:57 PM
To: Troy Toman; Mark Collier
Cc: defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Specific Capabilities Recommendation

On October 17, 2014 at 8:27 AM Troy Toman <troy at tomanator.com> wrote:

My concern is that if the capability is defined as ‘images-v1’ and the resolution is ‘images-v2’, we need to make sure that becomes a replacement capability vs. a superset. Similarly, the floating IP and security groups capabilities are defined based on API extensions and implementations in Nova. If the resolution comes through Neutron only improvements, that needs to be reflected in the required capabilities. The problem comes when we have a goal of not removing capabilities easily on a going forward basis.

Would it help if we kept some of these capabilities as advisory in Icehouse?  We could promote the consensus ones to approved and then continue discussing these.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20141017/8f46159f/attachment.html>