Open Stack

Excerpts from Hayes, Graham's message of 2016-07-18 17:13:09 +0000:
> On 18/07/2016 17:57, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Hayes, Graham wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> The point is that we were supposed to be a level field as a community
> >> but if we have examples like this, there is not a level playing field.
> >
> > While I generally agree on your goals here (avoid special-casing some
> > projects in generic support projects like Tempest), I want to clarify
> > what we meant by "level playing field" in a recent resolution.
> 
> 
> Yes - it has been pointed out the title is probably overloading a term
> just used for a different purpose - I am more than willing to change it.
> 
> I wasn't sure where I got the name, and I realised that was probably in
> my head from that resolution.
> 
> > This was meant as a level playing field for contributors within a
> > project, not a level playing field between projects. The idea is that
> > any contributor joining any OpenStack project should not be technically
> > limited compared to other contributors on the same project. So, no
> > "secret sauce" that only a subset of developers on a project have access to.
> 
> There is a correlation here - "special sauce" (not secret obviously)
> that only a subset of projects have access to.
> 
> > I think I understand where you're gong when you say that all projects
> > should have equal chances, but keep in mind that (1) projects should not
> > really "compete" against each other (but rather all projects should
> > contribute to the success of OpenStack as a whole) and (2) some
> > OpenStack projects will always be more equal than others (for example we
> > require that every project integrates with Keystone, and I don't see
> > that changing).
> 
> Yes, I agree we should not be competing. But was should not be asking
> the smaller projects to re-implement functionality, just because they
> did not get integrated in time.
> 
> We require all projects to integrate with keystone for auth, as we
> require all projects to integrate with neutron for network operations
> and designate for DNS, I just see it as a requirement for using the
> other components of OpenStack for their defined purpose.
> 

It would be useful to have some specific information from the QA/Tempest
team (and any others with a similar situation) about whether the current
situation about how differences between in-tree tests and plugin tests
are allowed to use various APIs. For example, are there APIs only
available to in-tree tests that are going to stay that way? Or is this
just a matter of not having had time to "harden" or "certify" or
otherwise prepare those APIs for plugins to use them?

Doug