Open Stack

On 19/03/14 12:31 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>Kurt Griffiths wrote:
>> Kudos to Balaji for working so hard on this. I really appreciate his candid feedback on both frameworks.
>
>Indeed, that analysis is very much appreciated.
>
>From the Technical Committee perspective, we put a high weight on a
>factor that was not included in the report results: consistency and
>convergence between projects we commonly release in an integrated manner
>every 6 months. There was historically a lot of deviation, but as we add
>more projects that deviation is becoming more costly. We want developers
>to be able to jump from one project to another easily, and we want
>convergence from an operators perspective.
>
>Individual projects are obviously allowed to pick the best tool in their
>toolbox. But the TC may also decide to let projects live out of the
>"integrated release" if we feel they would add too much divergence in.


My only concern in this case - I'm not sure if this has been discussed
or written somewhere - is to define what the boundaries of that
divergence are. For instance, and I know this will sound quite biased,
I don't think there's anything wrong on supporting a *set* of wsgi
frameworks. To be fair, there's already a set since currently
integrated projects use webob, swob and Pecan.

The point I'd like to get at is that as a general rule we probably
shouldn't limit the set of supported libraries to just 1.

Cheers,
Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140319/d8532e2a/attachment.pgp>