[openstack-dev] [oslo][barbican][castellan] Proposal to rename Castellan to oslo.keymanager

Davanum Srinivas davanum at gmail.com
Mon Mar 20 18:49:06 UTC 2017


Here's the precendent from oslo.policy:

The reason for setting it up this way with individuals + oslo core +
keystone core is to make sure both core teams are involved in the
review process and any future contributors who are not part of either
team can be give core rights in oslo.policy.

Is it ok to continue this model?


On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Dave McCowan (dmccowan)
<dmccowan at cisco.com> wrote:
> This sounds good to me.  I see it as a "promotion" for Castellan into the
> core of OpenStack.  I think a good first step in this direction is to
> create a castellan-drivers team in Launchpad and a castellan-core team in
> Gerrit.  We can seed the list with Barbican core reviewers and any Oslo
> volunteers.
> The Barbican/Castellan weekly IRC meeting is today at 2000UTC in
> #openstack-meeting-alt, if anyone want to join to discuss.
> Thanks!
> dave-mccowan
> On 3/16/17, 12:43 PM, "Davanum Srinivas" <davanum at gmail.com> wrote:
>>+1 from me to bring castellan under Oslo governance with folks from
>>both oslo and Barbican as reviewers without a project rename. Let's
>>see if that helps get more adoption of castellan
>>On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Farr, Kaitlin M.
>><Kaitlin.Farr at jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>>> This thread has generated quite the discussion, so I will try to
>>> address a few points in this email, echoing a lot of what Dave said.
>>> Clint originally explained what we are trying to solve very well. The
>>>hope was
>>> that the rename would emphasize that Castellan is just a basic
>>> interface that supports operations common between key managers
>>> (the existing Barbican back end and other back ends that may exist
>>> in the future), much like oslo.db supports the common operations
>>> between PostgreSQL and MySQL. The thought was that renaming to have
>>> oslo part of the name would help reinforce that it's just an interface,
>>> rather than a standalone key manager. Right now, the only Castellan
>>> back end that would work in DevStack is Barbican. There has been talk
>>> in the past for creating other Castellan back ends (Vault or Tang), but
>>> no one has committed to writing the code for those yet.
>>> The intended proposal was to rename the project, maintain the current
>>> review team (which is only a handful of Barbican people), and bring on
>>> a few Oslo folks, if any were available and interested, to give advice
>>> about (and +2s for) OpenStack library best practices. However, perhaps
>>> pulling it under oslo's umbrella without a rename is blessing it enough.
>>> In response to Julien's proposal to make Castellan "the way you can do
>>> key management in Python" -- it would be great if Castellan were that
>>> abstract, but in practice it is pretty OpenStack-specific. Currently,
>>> the Barbican team is great at working on key management projects
>>> (including both Barbican and Castellan), but a lot of our focus now is
>>> how we can maintain and grow integration with the rest of the OpenStack
>>> projects, for which having the name and expertise of oslo would be a
>>> great help.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kaitlin
>>> 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
>>Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list