Open Stack

On 05/04/2016 11:49 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Ok. Sure. More generically then. There are OpenStack compatible API implementations existing in the world, deployed by a not insignificant number of production clouds, that are currently outside the big tent that may have not considered proposing joining the community because of the past history of Python onlyness in the community. If we're considering Go, should we also be considering C++? Go currently has no production level OpenStack code finished. C++ does.

To be really clear, we are not considering alternate API 
implementations. OpenStack is not and never has been an API standards 
body. We are an Open Source project that ships code.

This is a case of the swift team themselves being interested in 
replacing part of their implementation with go.

I expect that if someone came up and said "oh hai, I've written a C++ 
version of Nova and y'all should bring it in to the big tent", then my 
response would be much less accommodating.

We do not need to consider whatever languages people might want to use. 
We need to consider concrete things that our actual teams want to 
actually do today.

We are not in the market for OpenStack compatible API implementations. 
This is not us opening the door for those to all of a sudden be "ok"


> ________________________________________
> From: Shinobu Kinjo [shinobu.kj at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 3:32 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go
>
> - Could we kindly stop discussing radosgw at this moment?
> + Could we kindly stop discussing any particular application at this moment?
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Shinobu Kinjo <shinobu.kj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Could we kindly stop discussing radosgw at this moment?
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>>> Fox, Kevin M wrote:
>>>>
>>>> RadosGW has been excluded from joining the OpenStack community in part due
>>>> to its use of c++.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I'd use the word "excluded" since RadosGW was never actually
>>> proposed. Maybe our past Python-centricity discouraged them to apply, but
>>> that's conjecture.
>>>
>>>> Now that we're talking about alternate languages, that may be on the table
>>>> now?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's been a possibility for the last 8 months.
>>>
>>> That said, my personal view is that we should accept additional languages
>>> when the current set of accepted languages is suboptimal for something we
>>> want to write or create. A technical benefit to outweigh the community
>>> fragmentation and increase in infrastructure tasks that result from adding
>>> that language.
>>>
>>> I'm less convinced that we should add a language for the sole benefit of
>>> being able to absorb an existing project into OpenStack which happens to be
>>> written in a specific language. Especially if the then-supported set of
>>> languages could provide the same technical benefits.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Email:
>> shinobu at linux.com
>> shinobu at redhat.com
>
>
>
> --
> Email:
> shinobu at linux.com
> shinobu at redhat.com
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>