[tc] [ironic] Promoting ironic to a top-level opendev project?

Doug Hellmann doug at doughellmann.com
Thu Apr 9 18:20:00 UTC 2020

> On Apr 9, 2020, at 1:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> On 2020-04-08 10:04:25 +0200 (+0200), Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> [...]
>>> Why *can't* OpenShift include OpenStack projects? I haven't seen
>>> this adequately explained.
>> It's less of a technical issue, but more of misunderstanding that
>> including an OpenStack project does not involve literally
>> installing OpenStack. And no matter what we think, for a lot of
>> people OpenStack==Nova (another marketing issue to address?).
> [...]
> I don't understand why that would make a difference in this case,
> unless you're saying that the people who make architectural
> decisions about what's included in OpenShift have no actual
> familiarity with Ironic and OpenStack. If you know anyone who works
> at that company, can you help them understand the difference?

This part of the argument has completely lost me. OpenShift 4 already includes Ironic. I’m not aware of any challenges that arose while making that happen that would have been solved or even made easier by Ironic being its own OIP.

>> On one hand, large distributions want us to have stable branches
>> every year or two. Even what we have is too much.
>> On the other - we have small consumers who could benefit from just
>> pulling the latest(ish) release and knowing that if a serous bug
>> is found there, they won't have to update to the next feature (and
>> potentially major) release.
> [...]
> This sounds like a problem shared by, well, basically every other
> project in OpenStack too. Perhaps it's an opportunity to collaborate
> on finding solutions.
> -- 
> Jeremy Stanley

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list