[openstack-dev] [all] Re-evaluating the suitability of the 6 month release cycle

Chris Dent chdent at redhat.com
Tue Mar 3 11:12:55 UTC 2015

On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Thierry Carrez wrote:

> I'd be careful with comparisons with the Linux kernel. First it's a
> single bit of software, not a collection of interconnected projects.
> Second it's at a very different evolution/maturity point (20 years old
> vs. 0-4 years old for OpenStack projects). Finally it sits at a
> different layer, so there is less need for documentation/translations to
> be shipped with the software release.

I think this is probably trampled ground, but is there some history on
why the OpenStack projects chose to own documentation, translation and
the concept of "shipping the release" instead of ceding that to the

I'm not suggesting it should be (or should have been) ceded, just
wondering how it ended up that way.

There seems to be energy oriented toward centralization, marketing,
consolidation, arrogation etc. that might otherwise be spent on making
code that can later be refined by the people who want to make
money with it.

At the moment there is a strong coupling between the projects and the
product. Is that the best arrangement or are there others that might
be worth considering?

Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list