Open Stack

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:45 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
>
> On 2020-08-13 17:27:16 +0100 (+0100), Erno Kuvaja wrote:
> [...]
> > My question at this point is, do we (as a community) have enough
> > bodies dedicated to OSSDK _and_ OSC to make this sustainable? I'm
> > being sincere here as I have not been part of the development of
> > either of those projects. But if my assumption above is correct, I
> > think we should talk about these things with their real names
> > rather than trying to mask this being just OSC vs python-*client
> > CLI thing.
>
> Hopefully this doesn't come across as a glib response, but if people
> didn't have to maintain multiple CLIs and SDKs then maybe they would
> have enough time to collaborate on a universal CLI/SDK pair instead.

Agreed - but historically that's not what happened, so the question
now is how to improve the situation. My understanding is that osc is
effectively dead, except as a shell around the sdk, since that's where
the future lies. So in my mind, efforts should be concentrated on two
fronts:

1. Continue converting osc to use the sdk
2. Catch up the SDK

This is a bit of a chicken and egg problem, because any gaps in sdk
mean you can't convert osc to use those missing bits, but ideally any
patches to osc that aren't sdk conversions would get blocked (though I
have obviously absolutely no say in the matter, this is just wishful
thinking). The project teams can work on 2 for their project (so like
I've been slowly doing for Nova), the osc team can work on 1.



> --
> Jeremy Stanley