Open Stack

Nope. The incompatibility was for things that never were in radosgw, not things that regressed over time. tmpurls differences and the namespacing things were there since the beginning first introduced.

At the last summit, I started with the DefCore folks and worked backwards until someone said, no we won't ever add tests for compatibility for that because radosgw is not an OpenStack project and we only test OpenStack.

Yes, I think thats a terrible thing. I'm just relaying the message I got.

Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________________
From: Ben Swartzlander [ben at swartzlander.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 10:21 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On 08/04/2016 11:57 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Ok. I'll play devils advocate here and speak to the other side of this, because you raised an interesting issue...
>
> Ceph is outside of the tent. It provides a (mostly) api compatible implementation of the swift api (radosgw), and it is commonly used in OpenStack deployments.
>
> Other OpenStack projects don't take it into account because its not a big tent thing, even though it is very common. Because of some rules about only testing OpenStack things, radosgw is not tested against even though it is so common.

I call BS on this assertion. We test things that outside the tent in the
upstream gate all the time -- the only requirement is that they be
released. We won't test against unreleased stuff that's outside the big
tent and the reason for that should be obvious.

> This causes odd breakages at times that could easily be prevented, but for procedural things around the Big Tent.

The only way I can see for "odd breakages" to sneak in is on the Ceph
side, if they aren't testing their changes against OpenStack and they
introduce a regression, then that's their fault (assuming of course that
we have good test coverage running against the latest stable release of
Ceph). It's reasonable to request that we increase our test coverage
with Ceph if it's not good enough and if we are the ones causing the
breakages. But their outside status isn't the problem.

-Ben Swartzlander


> I do think this should be fixed before we advocate single vendor projects exit the big tent after some time. As the testing situation may be made worse.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> ________________________________________
> From: Thierry Carrez [thierry at openstack.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:59 AM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects
>
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 08/01/2016 09:39 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> But if a project is persistently single-vendor after some time and
>>> nobody seems interested to join it, the technical value of that project
>>> being "in" OpenStack rather than a separate project in the OpenStack
>>> ecosystem of projects is limited. It's limited for OpenStack (why
>>> provide resources to support a project that is obviously only beneficial
>>> to one organization ?), and it's limited to the organization itself (why
>>> go through the OpenStack-specific open processes when you could shortcut
>>> it with internal tools and meetings ? why accept the oversight of the
>>> Technical Committee ?).
>>
>> A project can still be useful for everyone with a single vendor
>> contributing to it, even after a long period of existence. IMO that's
>> not the issue we're trying to solve.
>
> I agree with that -- open source projects can be useful for everyone
> even if only a single vendor contributes to it.
>
> But you seem to imply that the only way an open source project can be
> useful is if it's developed as an OpenStack project under the OpenStack
> Technical Committee governance. I'm not advocating that these projects
> should stop or disappear. I'm just saying that if they are very unlikely
> to grow a more diverse affiliation in the future, they derive little
> value in being developed under the OpenStack Technical Committee
> oversight, and would probably be equally useful if developed outside of
> OpenStack official projects governance. There are plenty of projects
> that are useful to OpenStack that are not developed under the TC
> governance (libvirt, Ceph, OpenvSwitch...)
>
> What is the point for a project to submit themselves to the oversight of
> a multi-organization Technical Committee if they always will be the
> result of the efforts of a single organization ?
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>


__________________________________________________________________________
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