Open Stack

Duncan Thomas wrote:
>
>
> On 20 July 2016 at 19:57, James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley at hansenpartnership.com
> <mailto:James.Bottomley at hansenpartnership.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     OK, I accept your analogy, even though I would view currency as the
>     will to create and push patches.
>
>     The problem you describe: getting the recipients to listen and accept
>     your patches, is also a common one.  The first essential is simple
>     minimal patches because they're hard to reject.
>
>     Once you've overcome the reject barrier, there's the indifference one
>     (no-one says no, but no-one says yes).
>
> [snip]
>
> The trouble with drive-by architecture patches (or large feature patches
> of any kind) is that it is often better *not* to merge them if you don't
> think the contributor is  going to stick around for a while. This
> changes are usually intrusive, and have repercussions that take time to
> discover. It's often difficult to keep a change clean when the original
> author isn't around to review the follow-on work.

Agreed, and knowing where yahoo and HP(e) are at right now (with regards 
to openstack and ...) these kind of things are a little more prevalent 
(with regards to quota, tasks...) now-a-days (for better or worse); not 
how I want it to be but it's reality.

Which I guess is why I'd be nice to have cross-project architecture 
'standardization' (? for lack of better word) with a more long term 
strategic vision (vs localized tactical visions). Such things are 
obviously not hard to get going (and are equally hard to sustain).

>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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