Open Stack

On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 14:06 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 10 June 2014 09:33, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Avoiding dragging the project into those sort of politics is something
> > I'm really keen on, and why I think the word "certification" is best
> > avoided so we can focus on what we're actually trying to achieve.
> 
> Avoiding those sorts of politics - 'XXX says it is a certified config,
> it doesn't work, cinder is junk' - is why I'd rather the cinder core
> team had a certification program, at least we've some control then and
> *other* people can't impose their idea of certification on us. I think
> politics happens, whether you will it or not, so a far more sensible
> stance is to play it out in advance.

Exposing which configurations are actively "tested" is a perfectly sane
thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this "certification" is
necessary to achieve your goals. I don't know what you mean be "others
imposing their idea of certification".

Mark.