Open Stack

Agreed, testing options is good; and should likely be disjoint from the legal questions around mongodb...

Although if there is really only one viable & scalable option and that option has legal usage questions surrounding it then it makes me wonder how much we are kidding ourselves on there being anything optional about this... Not something I can answer but someone likely should?.?.

I guess it really depends on what the desired outcome of testing with mongodb is, if the outcome is to satisfy a TC requirement for improved testing via *any* backend then this would seem applicable. If instead it's around testing a backend that isn't legally encumbered (and is also realistically viable to use) then we are in a different area altogether...

Just my 2cents.

Sent from my really tiny device...

> On Aug 9, 2014, at 10:53 AM, "Eoghan Glynn" <eglynn at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> +2 from me,
>> 
>> More mongodb adoption (as stated) when it's questionable legally doesn't seem
>> like a good long term strategy (I know it will/does impact yahoo adopting or
>> using ceilometer...). Is this another one of those tactical changes that we
>> keep on making that ends up being yet another piece of technical debt that
>> someone will have to cleanup :-/
>> 
>> If we thought a little more about this strategically maybe we would end up in
>> a better place short term *and* long term??
> 
> Hi Joshua,
> 
> Since we currently do support mongodb as an *optional* storage driver,
> and some distros do recommend its usage, then surely we should test this
> driver fully in the upstream gate to support those users who take that
> option?
> 
> (i.e. those users who accept MongoDB Inc's assurances[1] in regard to
> licensing of the client-side driver)
> 
> Cheers,
> Eohgan
> 
> [1] http://www.mongodb.org/about/licensing/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev