Open Stack

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-05-12 13:37:32 +0200:
> Tim Bell wrote:
> > [...]
> > I think it will be really difficult to persuade the mainstream projects to adopt
> > a library if it is not part of Oslo. Developing a common library for quota
> > management outside the scope of the common library framework for OpenStack
> > does not seem to be encouraging the widespread use of delimiter.
> > [...]
> 
> I agree it's hard enough to get Oslo libraries used across the board, I 
> don't think the task would be any easier with an external library.
> 
> One case that would justify being external is if the library was 
> generally useful rather than OpenStack-specific: then the Oslo branding 
> might hinder its out-of-OpenStack adoption. But it doesn't feel like 
> that is the case here ?
> 

In the past we've tried to encourage folks creating very specially
focused libraries for which areas where the existing Oslo team has no
real experience, such as os-win, to set up their own team. The Oslo team
doesn't have to own all libraries.

On the other hand, in this case I think quota management fits in Oslo as
well as messaging or policy do. We have a mechanism in place for managing
sub-teams so signing up to work on quotas doesn't have to mean signing
up to be oslo-core.

The notion that we're going to try to have all projects depend on
something we create but that we *don't* create as part of an official
project is extremely confusing. Whether we make it part of Oslo or part
of its own thing, I think we want this to be official.

Before pushing too hard to bring the new lib under the Oslo umbrella,
I'd like to understand why folks might not want to do that. What "costs"
are perceived?

Doug