Open Stack

On 08/04/2014 10:29 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 08/04/2014 09:46 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2014 09:09 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
>>>> Duncan Thomas
>>>> On Aug 1, 2014 9:44 PM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yup. Though I'd love for this code to live in olso, not glance...
>>>>
>>>> Why Oslo? There seems to be a general obsession with getting things into
>>>> Oslo, but our (cinder team) general experiences with the end result have
>>>> been highly variable, to the point where we've discussed just saying no
>>>> to Oslo code since the pain is more than the gain. In this case, the
>>>> glance team are the subject matter experts, the glance interfaces and
>>>> internals are their core competency, I honestly can't see any value in
>>>> putting the project anywhere other than glance
>>>
>>> 2 reasons.
>>>
>>> 1) This is code that will be utilized by >1 project, and is a library, not a service endpoint. That seems to be right up the Oslo alley.
>>>
>>> 2) The mission of the Glance program has changed to being an application catalog service, not an image streaming service.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> -jay
>>
>> Oslo isn’t the only program that can produce reusable libraries, though. If the Glance team is going to manage this code anyway, it makes sense to leave it in the Glance program.
>
> Agreed. Honestly it's better to keep the review teams close to the
> expertise for the function at hand.
>
> It needs to be ok that teams besides oslo create reusable components for
> other parts of OpenStack. Oslo should be used for things where there
> isn't a strong incumbent owner. I think we have a strong incumbent owner
> here so living in Artifacts program makes sense to me.

Sure, fair points from all. If it can be imported/packaged without 
including all the legacy Glance code, then I'd be more behind keeping it 
in Glance...

-jay