Open Stack

On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-23 17:07:36 +0100:
> > On Mon, 23 May 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-20 14:16:15 +0100:
> > >> I don't think language does (or should) have anything to do with it.
> > >>
> > >> The question is whether or not the tool (whether service or
> > >> dependent library) is useful to and usable outside the openstack-stack.
> > >> For example gnocchi is useful to openstack but you can use it with other
> > >> stuff, therefore _not_ openstack. More controversially: swift can be
> > >> usefully used all by its lonesome: _not_ openstack.
> > >

Making a tool which is useful outside of the OpenStack context just
seems like good software engineering - it seems odd that we would try
and ensure our tools do not fit this description. Fortunately, many (or
even most) of the tools we create *are* useful outside of the OpenStack
world - pbr, git-review, diskimage-builder, (I hope) many of the oslo
libraries. This is really a question of defining useful interfaces more
than anything else, not a statement of whether a tool is part of our
community.

> > > Add keystone, cinder, and ironic to that list.
> > 
> > Hmmm. You can, but would people want to (that is, would it be a sound
> > choice?)? Or _do_ people? Maybe that's the distinction? As far as I
> 
> Yes, I'm aware of cases of each of those projects being used without
> "the rest" of OpenStack. I used keystone like that to secure some
> internal APIs myself.
> 

This has become  a very popular way of using Ironic as well. We even
have an OpenStack project (bifrost) which is used to deploy Ironic in
this fashion.

Cheers,
Greg