Open Stack

Excerpts from Pete Zaitcev's message of 2016-11-10 11:00:27 -0700:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:14:32 +0000 (GMT)
> Chris Dent <cdent+os at anticdent.org> wrote:
> 
> > The conversations about additional languages in this community have
> > been one our most alarmingly regressive and patronizing. They seem
> > to be bred out of fear rather than hope and out of lack of faith in
> > each other than in trust. We've got people who want to build stuff.
> > Isn't that the important part?
> 
> I dunno, it seems fine to discuss. I'm disappointed that TC voted Golang
> down on August 2, but I can see where they come from.
> 
> The problem we're grappling with on the Swift side is (in my view) mainly
> that the Go reimplementation provides essential performance advantages
> which manifest at a certain scale (around 100 PB with current technology).
> For this reason, ignoring Hummingbird and prohibiting Go is not going to
> suppress them. As the operators deploy Hummingbird in preference to the
> Python implementation, the focus of the development is going to migrate,
> and the end result is going to be an effective exile of a founding
> project from the OpenStack.

That doesn't have to be the case. I don't want to speak for anyone
else on the TC, but my reason for saying "not yet" was a lack of
faith that some of the issues Flavio is putting together will be
addressed in the process of trying to add Go to the community.  My
request has been to demonstrate not just that Swift needs Go, but
that Swift is willing to help the rest of the community in the
adoption. I'm starting to see signs of that happening, for example
with some discussions about how oslo.config can be used in the
current version of swift.

> (Even if happens, it's probably not a big deal. Just look how well Ceph
> is doing, community-wise. Operators aren't crying bloody tears either,
> do they?)
> 
> The conflict is that since re-writing e.g. Newtron in Go does not confer
> the same performance advantage (AFAIK -- your VLANs aren't going to set
> up and tear down 80 times faster), the disruption isn't worth the trouble
> for the majority of OpenStack projects. This is why TC voted us down.

That is not why I voted against the most recent request.

> And the talk about the community is mostly there to heal psychologically.

I'm not sure what you mean by that sentence. Can you rephrase it?

> So, it wasn't "regressive" or "patronizing", just business. See how Flavio
> outlined specific steps in a constructive manner.
> 
> I'm quite glad that Ash wants to do something about CI. And I'm going
> to look into fully supporting existing configurations. Maybe share it with
> Designate and thus create something like a proto-"oslo.go.config".
> Of course we need to have some code to share first.

That's good news, thank you.

> 
> -- Pete
>