Open Stack

On 05/29/2014 05:26 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
>> I honestly just think we might want to also use it as a time to rethink
>> our program concept. Because all our programs that include projects that
>> are part of the integrated release are 1 big source tree, and maybe a
>> couple of little trees that orbit it (client and now specs repos). If we
>> always expect that to be the case, I'm not really sure why we built this
>> intermediate grouping.
> 
> Programs were established to solve two problems. First one is the
> confusion around project types. We used to have project types[1] that
> were trying to reflect and include all code repositories that we wanted
> to make "official". That kept on changing, was very confusing, and did
> not allow flexibility for each team in how they preferred to organize
> their code repositories. The second problem that solved was to recognize
> non-integrated-project efforts which were still essential to the
> production of OpenStack, like Infra or Docs.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProjectTypes
> 
> "Programs" just let us bless goals and teams and let them organize code
> however they want, with contribution to any code repo under that
> umbrella being considered "official" and ATC-status-granting. I would be
> a bit reluctant to come back to the projecttypes mess and create
> categories of programs (integrated projects on one side, and "others").
> 
> Back to the topic, the tension here is because DNS is seen as a
> "network" thing and therefore it sounds like it makes sense under
> "Networking". But "programs" are not categories or themes. They are
> teams aligned on a mission statement. If the teams are different
> (Neutron and Designate) then it doesn't make sense to artificially merge
> them just because you think of "networking" as a theme. If the teams
> converge, yes it makes sense. If they don't, we should just create a new
> program. They are cheap and should reflect how we work, not the other
> way around.

Ok, that's fare. My confusion might stem from the fact that in nova,
novaclient really is being done by largely distinct subset of folks, and
tends to have minimal overlap with nova itself. That might just be the
size of the effort, and also will hopefully be addressed by the unified
SDK/client getting off the ground.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140529/c66ee271/attachment.pgp>