Open Stack

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 09:31:45AM +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 11/06/15 17:36 +0300, Matthew Mosesohn wrote:
> >Secondly, I'd like to point out that Fuel is not so different from
> >what other teams are doing. At the Summit, I heard from others who all
> >maintain internal Gerrits and internal forks of the modules. The
> >difference is that Fuel is being worked on in the open in StackForge.
> >Anyone is free to contribute to Fuel as he or she wishes, take our
> >patches, or review changesets.
> 
> TBH, I really dislike the fact that there are internal forks but as
> long as they are kept internal, I don't really care.

"Internal" may apply to other projects Matt is referring to, but it does
not apply to Fuel. Fuel's forks of upstream puppet modules are not
internal, they're embedded into the fuel-library repository, which,
along with the rest of Fuel source code, is fully public.

> It's not correct to just copy/paste code, sure, but at least they are
> not making it publicly consumable with the wrong attributions.

We are making Fuel publicly consumable, and, as I've pointed out in
previous email, we're keeping all attributions in the source code
intact.

> I do prefer (and I believe Emiliem does as well) to have Fuel in the
> open,

And yet in your previous statements you say that publishing Fuel source
code is somehow worse than keeping one's modifications of open source
code unavailable to public. Which one is it?

-- 
Dmitry Borodaenko