Open Stack

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:14 AM Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:

> On 10/06/2015 06:01 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 10/06/2015 01:14 PM, Yuriy Taraday wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:40 PM Roman Prykhodchenko <me at romcheg.me
> >> <mailto:me at romcheg.me>> wrote:
> >>
> >>      Atm I have the following pros. and cons. regarding testrepository:
> >>
> >>      pros.:
> >>
> >>      1. It’s ”standard" in OpenStack so using it gives Fuel more karma
> >>      and moves it more under big tent
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't think that big tent model aims at eliminating diversity of tools
> >> we use in our projects. A collection of web frameworks used in big tent
> >> is an example of that.
> >
> >  From the downstream distro point of view, I don't agree in general, and
> > with the web framework in particular. (though it's less a concern for
> > the testr vs pbr). We keep adding dependencies and duplicates, but never
> > remove them. For example, tablib and suds/sudsjurko need to be removed
> > because they are not maintainable, there's not much work to do so, but
> > nobody does the work...
>
> The Big Tent has absolutely no change in opinion about eliminating
> diversity of tools. OpenStack has ALWAYS striven to reduce diversity of
> tools. Big Tent applies OpenStack to more things that request to be part
> of OpenStack.
>
> Nothing has changed in the intent.
>
> Diversity of tools in a project this size is a bad idea. Always has
> been. Always will be.
>
> The amount of web frameworks in use is a bug.
>

I'm sorry, that was my mistake. I just can't remember any project that was
declined place under big tent (or integrated) because of a library in use.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151007/0c1c5301/attachment.html>