Open Stack

melanie witt wrote:
> [...]
> I don't know if the obscurity of standalone Ironic is intentional or if 
> it's just because it's an "implementation detail" that people don't 
> think to mention. Either way, it makes it tough when someone is 
> interested and you're trying to find them some examples to check out.

I don't think it's intentional, but it's a side-effect of only 
presenting Ironic in an openstack context (openstack.org, 
docs.openstack.org, Open Infra Summit...)

Technically it is an implementation detail. But as long as we say 
"Ironic is bare metal for OpenStack, it can also be used standalone" 
instead of "Ironic does bare metal provisioning, it can integrate with 
OpenStack", I suspect the standalone case will remain obscure.

> Is this related to it being "OpenStack" vs not? I'm skeptical, but maybe 
> I'm wrong.

I'm also skeptical that this is a governance issue. I bet nobody checks 
the governance of the project to determine if it can be used standalone.

We do however have systems in place that can make the life of a 
"can-be-used-standalone" project more difficult than it should be. The 
solution IMHO is not to jump the ship, but to identify and fix those 
systems. Other OpenStack components will be able to benefit from it.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)