Open Stack

On 20/12/17 07:07, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 13/12/17 11:17, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> So... What do you think ?
>
> Some points against that I haven't seen mentioned much yet:
>
> * Following our standard deprecation policy, it would take up to 3
> years to remove anything. For perspective, 3 years ago we had just
> shipped Juno. (I feel old now.)
>
> * Other large, complex software distributions have moved to 6-month or
> shorter development cycles (e.g. Ubuntu, Fedora, Chromium, Linux,
> Firefox), with apparent success. What do we think is different about
> the context in which we work that makes it a good idea to go in the
> other direction?
>
> * Upgrading OpenStack is painful for our users. Modern software
> development theory holds that you make painful things less painful by
> doing them *more* often, in smaller bites. (And preferably make the
> developers suffer some of the pain, so they're motivated to reduce
> it.) Less frequent upgrades with bigger changes is likely to provoke
> even more of our users to remain on old releases indefinitely.
>
> * It's true that OpenStack is mature in the sense that the things it
> does are pretty stable. It's not true in the sense of it being close
> to fulfilling our mission, of implementing a full-featured cloud.
> (e.g. my pet bug-bear: applications can't use it unless they have
> economies of scale, are prepared to implement a bunch of stuff
> themselves, and are extremely motivated to use OpenStack over
> alternatives that are designed with application support in mind... so
> basically just infra.) We absolutely need to keep up a fast pace of
> innovation in order not to become irrelevant.
>

+100

> * Natural complements to OpenStack like Kubernetes also have rapid
> release cycles. If we're unable to respond rapidly to changes in them
> (by adjusting our integration points in a timely fashion) then they're
> going to be more inclined to put effort into working around OpenStack
> than into working together. (The fact that said integration points
> largely don't exist at the moment is also an example of the previous
> point.)

Very good point.

>
> * As someone who will probably volunteer as a PTL again at some point,
> the prospect of having to sign up for an entire year is a major
> disincentive to do so.
>
>
> I'm all for encouraging companies who are using OpenStack to
> contribute e.g. 20% of a developer to helping out upstream. I'm not at
> all convinced that regular releases are an obstacle to that - by the
> 'pace' of development I suspect they mean the constant code churn
> resulting in never-ending rebases of outstanding patches that they
> struggle to get reviews on (often, it must be said, because they are
> GIANT), and not the release cadence. So count me as -1 on this change.
>
> cheers,
> Zane.
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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

-- 
Cheers & Best regards,
Feilong Wang (王飞龙)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Cloud Software Engineer
Tel: +64-48032246
Email: flwang at catalyst.net.nz
Catalyst IT Limited
Level 6, Catalyst House, 150 Willis Street, Wellington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------