Open Stack

On Nov 8, 2012, at 11:06 AM, John Dickinson <me at not.mn> wrote:

> We should empower HP, RAX, ATT, and others to build great products for their customers. Ensuring that they work together is in the realm of branding and trademarks, though, and that's managed by the Board of Directories. This also give private cloud deployments a standard to work against as they deploy their solutions.

I don't think we can push "ensuring that they work together" off onto the board of directors. Interopability is only going to be achieved by the projects collaborating to provide a seamless experience. This is a hard problem and while I lean strongly towards  including other projects in our shared releases, we have to be careful not to just throw in a bunch of stuff and watering down the quality of the release.

Each time we add a new project to the release it makes it harder to deploy openstack. Witness the issues with glance then keystone then cinder and quantum. Fundamentally there are two issues with including more projects:

a) confusing end users by giving them too many options.
b) increased load ci, doc, and testing resources leading to poor release quality.

We may be able to solve a) by adding some definitions to the released projects. We could label new projects experimental for example. Unfortunately, b) is a little trickier. Perhaps we just need to be measured in how we add projects, but I just don't think it is possible to manage 10+ projects under one 6 month release cycle.

Vish