Open Stack

On 11/05/16 09:47 -0500, Dean Troyer wrote:
>On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>[language mixing bits were here]
>
>
>    The above is my main concern with this proposal. I've mentioned this in the
>    upstream review and I'm glad to have found it here as well. The community
>    impact
>    of this change is perhaps not being discussed enough and I believe, in the
>    long
>    run, it'll bite us.
>
>
>Agreed, but to do nothing instead is so not what we are about.  The change from
>integrated/incubated to Big Tent was done to address some issues knowing we did
>not have all of the answers up front and would learn some things along the
>way.  We did learn some things, both good and bad.
>
>I do believe that we can withstand the impact of a new language, particularly
>when we do it intentionally and knowing where some of the pitfalls are.  Also,
>the specific request is coming from the oldest of all OpenStack projects, and
>one that has a history of not making big changes without _really_ good
>reasons.  Yes it opens a door, but it will be opened with what I believe to be
>a really solid model to build upon in other parts of the OpenStack community. 
>I would MUCH rather do it this way then with a new Go-only project that is
>joining OpenStack from scratch in more than just the implementation language.


So, one thing that was mentioned during the last TC meeting is to decide this in
a project basis. Don't open the door entirely but let projects sign up for this.
This will give us a more contained growth as far as projects with go-code go but
it does mean we'll have to do a technical analysis on every project willing to
sign up and it kinda goes against the principles of the big tent.

>
>    The feedback from the Horizon community has been that it's been impossible
>    to
>    avoid a community split and that's what I'd like to avoid.
>
>
>I do think part of this is also due to the differences in the problem domain of
>client/browser-side and server-side.  I believe there is a similar issue with
><any-language> devs writing SQL, the overlap in expertise between the two is
>way smaller than we all wish it was.

Exactly! This separation of domains is the reason why opening the door for JS
code was easier. The request was for browser apps that can't be written in
Python.

>And for the specific Python-Golang overlap, it feels to me like more Python
>devs have (at least talked about) working in Go than in other newish
>languages.  There are worse choices to test the waters with.

Just to stress this a bit more, I don't think the problem is the language per
se. There are certainly technical issues related to it (packaging, CI, etc) but
the main discussion is currently going around the impact this change will have
in the community and other areas. I'm sure we can figure the technical issues
out.

Flavio

>dt
>
>--
>
>Dean Troyer
>dtroyer at gmail.com

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160511/54e760a7/attachment.pgp>