Open Stack

Folks

As Dmitry already said, we are open towards merging with upstream and would
like to make our code divergence no more than several percents of lines,
but there are historical reasons for this divergence with which we are not
happy either. So let's just point out that both sides look into the same
direction and we just need to figure out workflows and technical details on
how to make it comfortable both for Puppet OpenStack and Fuel developers,
taking into consideration that we all need to meet our deadlines and goals.
Let's close this dicussion with positive results that we both want to merge
the codebases as much possible and stop all the blame and judgement game
here. Let's do a good friendly meeting and come up with a list of action
items for both sides. I do not think that moving towards a quarell is in
any way productive.

Let's do IRC or at least voice-based meeting and figure out all the details.


On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 12/06/15 03:04 -0700, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Yup, I was referring to other projects too. I should've been more
> explicit but thanks for clarifying.
>
>
>>  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?
>>
>
> I was referring to other projects :)
>
> I like Fuel open, I like every project open but I'd very much want
> them to do it right.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Flavio
>
> --
> @flaper87
> Flavio Percoco
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Yours Faithfully,
Vladimir Kuklin,
Fuel Library Tech Lead,
Mirantis, Inc.
+7 (495) 640-49-04
+7 (926) 702-39-68
Skype kuklinvv
35bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
Moscow, Russia,
www.mirantis.com <http://www.mirantis.ru/>
www.mirantis.ru
vkuklin at mirantis.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150612/7aa707b6/attachment.html>