Open Stack

> On Apr 6, 2020, at 4:10 AM, Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:35 AM Jean-Philippe Evrard <jean-philippe at evrard.me <mailto:jean-philippe at evrard.me>> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 12:38 +0200, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> 

[snip]

> > Now, I do agree that there are steps that can be taken before we go
> > all nuclear. We can definitely work on our own website, we can reduce
> > reliance on oslo, start releasing independently, and so on. I'm
> > wondering what will be left of our participation in OpenStack in the
> > end. Thierry has suggested the role of the TC in ensuring
> > integration. I'm of the opinion that if all stakeholders in Ironic
> > lose interest in Ironic as part of OpenStack, no power will prevent
> > the integration from slowly falling apart.
> 
> I don't see it that way. I see this as an opportunity to make OpenStack
> more clear, more reachable, more interesting. For me, Ironic, Cinder,
> Manila (to only name a few), are very good example of datacenter/IaaS
> software that could be completely independent in their consumption, and
> additionally released together. For me, the strength of OpenStack was
> always in the fact it had multiple small projects that work well
> together, compared to a single big blob of software which does
> everything. We just didn't bank enough on the standalone IMHO. But I am
> sure we are aligned there... Wouldn't the next steps be instead to make
> it easier to consume standalone?
> 
> For us one of the problems, as I've mentioned already, is producing releases more often. Now, the point of potential misunderstanding is this: we can (and do) release more often than once in 6 months. These releases, however, do not enjoy the same degree of support as the "blessed" releases, especially when it comes to upgrades and longer-term support.

But that’s not because Ironic is part of OpenStack, right? Nothing stops teams from creating and managing additional branches. The rest of the OpenStack community doesn’t do that, so the Ironic team would have to manage the additional work (creating the branches, supporting them in CI, backports, filing more releases, etc.) but that wouldn’t change if Ironic was not part of OpenStack, would it? If anything, there would be less support because some of the automation we have for OpenStack projects wouldn’t be there to lean on.

Doug

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200406/379d3c88/attachment.html>