Open Stack

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 09/23/2013 02:37 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
>> Hey
>>
>> I meant to send this as soon as nominations opened - I figure that
>> incumbent PTLs should make it clear if they don't intend to nominate
>> themselves for re-election.
>>
>> To that end - I'm not going to put myself forward for election as Oslo
>> PTL this time around. This is purely based on a gut instinct that doing
>> so will actually be better for Oslo. I still care a great deal about
>> Oslo's mission and will continue to work on Oslo in Icehouse, e.g. doing
>> reviews and getting the oslo.messaging work over the line.
>>
>> I think the legacy of cut-and-paste code across OpenStack is a serious
>> threat to OpenStack's future progress and tackling it effectively is
>> going to require the help of many more of the core developers from other
>> projects. I'm hoping that by not being PTL, there'll be more space for
>> others to jump in and help drive Oslo's direction with new ideas and new
>> approaches.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.**org <OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**openstack-dev<http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>>
> Knowing your commitment to Open Stack, I don't feel any need to say "Sorry
> to see you go" as I know this means just an adjustment of focus for you.
>
> What if we said that all core developers on other projects were considered
> core developers on Oslo?  In other words, all of OpenStack has a vested
> interest in code review of the common components.  Would this encourage
> more reviews in Oslo?  Or, would it hurt the overall quality of the Oslo
> code base?  It would certainly broaden the pool of developers, but there
> would be a need to level set the coding standards.
>

Oslo core tries to take a cross-project perspective to everything. That's
not something I think we should assume every core reviewer for the other
projects is ready to do -- understandably, most of them are focused on
their project. That's not to say we wouldn't welcome help, of course, just
that we should build the Oslo team in the same way that we build the other
teams.


>
> Another approach would be that each of the major projects "adopts" a
> subset of Oslo functionality.  For example, Keystone could claim
> responsibility for revewing Crypto and Policy changes.  I realize that Oslo
> already has a way of identifying developers that can review subsets of the
> code, but this would mean that core projects would collectively have more
> responsiblity and ownership of the Oslo libraries.


This may work for some cases, and I would like to explore our options (see
my message in the other thread on this topic). One impediment is deciding
whether the shared code is ready to move into a library yet. A goal for the
incubator repository is to allow projects to adopt unstable APIs as they
are able, without preventing changes to the APIs in the mean time. Moving
something to a library prematurely makes it more difficult to have that
flexibility.

Doug
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130924/38878989/attachment.html>