Open Stack

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
> As I noted in the meeting yesterday, I think the lack of response from
> TripleO regarding this topic is kind of answer enough.  TripleO has
> moved away from having a heavy dependency on diskimage-builder (it's
> basically used to install some packages and a handful of elements that
> we haven't been able to replace yet), so I don't see a problem with
> moving dib out of TripleO, as long as we still have some TripleO folks
> on the core team and tripleo-ci continues to test all changes against
> it.  We still care about keeping dib working, but the motivation from
> the TripleO side to do feature development in dib is pretty nonexistent
> at this point, so if a new team wants to take that on then I'm good with
> it.
> 
> Note that the diskimage-builder core team has always been separate from
> the tripleo-core team, so ultimately I guess this would just be a
> governance change?
> 

Awesome, that is what I hoped/expected and why I figured this was a
reasonable move to make. It's good to hear some confirmation.

The cores thing is a bit tricky - there is a separate
diskimage-builder-core group but tripleo-core is a member of
diskimage-builder core. I think tripleo-core should get moved out from
being diskimage-builder-core but there's some folks who are not in
diskimage-builder-core that are in tripleo-core and are active in DIB.
Maybe we can take all tripleo-core folk who have done 2 or more reviews
this past cycle and add them to diskimage-builder-core?

Cheers,
Greg