[tc] [ironic] Promoting ironic to a top-level opendev project?
doug at doughellmann.com
Mon Apr 13 20:51:28 UTC 2020
> On Apr 13, 2020, at 4:50 PM, Julia Kreger <juliaashleykreger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:27 AM Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com <mailto:doug at doughellmann.com>> wrote:
>>> 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.
> I'm sure one time challenges would have been greater initially, but
> ongoing headaches would be less IMHO. All headaches there are a result
> of how people want to do their jobs and achieve/interpret goals with
> perceptions while trying to match that up to policy and procedural
> frameworks. In essence, without further delineation, it is an uphill
> battle that focuses on finding the string "OpenStack" and directing it
> to that process.
That may be true, but those problems are internal to Red Hat, aren’t they?
>>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openstack-discuss