Open Stack

Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com> wrote on 04/11/2013 12:55:39 PM:
> Excerpts from Doug Davis's message of 2013-04-10 05:27:54 -0700:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I believe that the core of Heat should, for the most part, remain
pretty
> > agnostic
> > to the format of the deployment descriptions.
> >
> > There will be a bit of pain for users of Heat for a while until the
dust
> > settles and
> > the community gravitates towards the preferred format.  But I'd prefer
to
> > let the users
> > and the community decide the winner instead of just us doing it right
now.
> >
>
> Right, I am most concerned with deciding on our principles, not on
> trying to crown a king.  If a user shows up with an entirely new way to
> drive Heat, but it does not compromise Heat, I think we should be quite
> enthusiastic about accepting it into Heat.
>
> There is a side concern, which is that Heat's documentation will need to
> focus on one standard for the sake of user education and for gathering
> steam around the format we think will benefit the broadest base of users.
> This isn't to the exclusion of others, but without that kind of focus,
> users will get frustrated.

Even if there is one 'main' format and docs, I think it would be incumbent
upon anyone suggesting an alternative format to also include the docs that
go along with it.  New format w/o docs should be rejected... the same way
it should be rejected if its lacking tests, etc...

-Doug

> Maybe TOSCA is a great way to bring large scale applications and
> enterprise users into Heat, but that may be too heavy and narrow focus
> for Heat to push as "the way to learn Heat".
>
>
> Clint Byrum
> HP Cloud Services
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130411/d39110cb/attachment.html>