[openstack-dev] [puppet] Moving under the "big tent"
rochelle.grober at huawei.com
Tue Mar 17 00:24:03 UTC 2015
Emilien Macchi [mailto:emilien at redhat.com] on Monday, March 16, 2015 09:00 wrote:
On 03/16/2015 11:13 AM, Colleen Murphy wrote:
> This thread is to follow up on our IRC discussion today. In today's
> meeting we started discussing whether we want to pursue applying to
> move under the OpenStack namespace and what pros and cons are. One
> concern that was brought up was that our contributor base, being
> largely made up of operators with many responsibilities, may not
> remain as consistent as the contributors in other major projects. The
> counter to that was that being a "real" project may increase the number of contributors we get.
> Another point of discussion was which projects to move, if not all of
> them. How should we distinguish which projects are supported, and
> which are "incubated" (or deprecated)?
I think we should evaluate our modules and define together which ones are well tested, widely-used so we can tag them "core" (ie:
puppet-nova). Otherwise I would suggest using "incubating" tag (ie:
[Rockyg] Tags are great, but please don't overload them! "Core" should be reserved or even never used, as it has so many (and so loaded) meanings. Perhaps follow some of the other suggestions: experimental for new projects until they are "mature," then remove the tag. The assumption should be that *unless* something is labeled, it should be considered well tested and widely used.
The good stuff shouldn't need labels; the new stuff should have the warning labels.
> Please raise your concerns and discussion points here.
+1 for moving under the big tent.
> Colleen (crinkle)
> ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev