Open Stack

On 12/7/18 1:09 AM, Melvin Hillsman wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Michael McCune <msm at redhat.com 
> <mailto:msm at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     thanks for bringing this up Melvin.
> 
>     On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:13 PM Melvin Hillsman <mrhillsman at gmail.com
>     <mailto:mrhillsman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>      > Essentially the proposal is to deploy OpenStack from upstream (devstack
>     or other), stand up a VM within the cloud, grab all the SDKs, run acceptance
>     tests, report pass/fail results, update project navigator. Of course there
>     are details to be worked out and I do have a few questions that I hope would
>     help get everyone interested on the same page via this thread.
>      >
>      > Does this make sense?
>      >
> 
>     makes sense to me, and sounds like a good idea provided we have the
>     people ready to maintain the testing infra and patches for this (which
>     i assume we do).
> 
> 
> I think we have a good base to build on, should get started, keep everyone 
> informed, and we can continue to work to recruit more interested folks. I think 
> if we work especially hard to streamline the entire process so it is as 
> automated as possible.
> 
> 
>      > Would folks be interested in a SDK SIG or does it make more sense to
>     request an item on the API SIG's agenda?
>      >
> 
>     i don't have a strong opinion either way, but i will point out that
>     the API-SIG has migrated to office hours instead of a weekly meeting.
>     if you expect that the proposed SDK work will have a strong cadence
>     then it might make more practical sense to create a new SIG, or really
>     even a working group until the objective of the testing is reached.
> 
>     the only reason i bring up working groups here is that there seems
>     like a clearly stated goal for the initial part of this work. namely
>     creating the testing and validation infrastructure described. it might
>     make sense to form a working group until the initial work is complete
>     and then move continued discussion under the API-SIG for organization.
> 
> 
> Working group actually makes a lot more sense, thanks for the suggestion, I 
> agree with you; anyone else?

I disagree :) I think back around Dublin we agreed that SDKs are in scope of API 
SIG, since they help people consume our API. And given that the API SIG is 
barely alive, it may be give it a chance to become active again.

> 
> 
>      > Bi-weekly discussions a good cadence?
>      >
> 
>     that sounds reasonable for a start, but i don't have a strong opinion here.
> 
>      > Who is interested in tackling this together?
>      >
> 
>     if you need any help from API-SIG, please reach out. i would be
>     willing to help with administrative/governance type stuff.

As an author of a young SDK, I'm certainly in, be it within or outside of the 
API SIG.

Dmitry

> 
> 
>     peace o/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Melvin Hillsman
> mrhillsman at gmail.com <mailto:mrhillsman at gmail.com>
> mobile: (832) 264-2646