Open Stack

 ---- On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 02:23:39 -0600 Lajos Katona <katonalala at gmail.com> wrote ----
 > Hi,
 > Thanks for the advice.
 > The intention from the Neutron team was to make it clear that the team currently has no capacity to help the maintenance of neutron-fwaas, and can't help to maintain it.If there's easier ways for volunteers to keep it maintained other than forking it to x/ namespace that would be really helpful.

Thanks Lajos, 

Main point here is if it is maintained by current maintainer (inspur team or other developers) whether neutron team will consider that
to be in added in neutron stadium?

If yes, then it will be extra work to move to x/ namespace now and then bring back to openstack/.
If no, then moving to x/ namespace is good option or if maintainer want to be in openstack then we can discuss about
a separate new project (but that needs more discussion on host much cost it adds).

-gmann

 > Lajos Katona (lajoskatona)
 > 
 > Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2022. jan. 18., K, 18:58):
 > On 2022-01-18 10:49:48 -0600 (-0600), Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
 > [...]
 > > As discussed in project-config change[1], you or neutron folks can
 > > propose the retirement now itself (considering there is no one to
 > > maintain/release stable/victoria for new bug fixes) and TC will
 > > merge it as per process. After that, creating it in x/ namespace
 > > will be good to do.
 > [...]
 > 
 > Looking at this from a logistical perspective, it's a fair amount of
 > churn in code hosting as well as unwelcoming to the new volunteers,
 > compared to just leaving the repository where it is now and letting
 > them contribute to it there. If the concern is that the Neutron team
 > doesn't want to retain responsibility for it while they evaluate the
 > conviction of the new maintainers for eventual re-inclusion, then
 > the TC would be well within its rights to declare that the
 > repository can remain in place while not having it be part of the
 > Neutron team's responsibilities.
 > 
 > There are a number of possible solutions, ranging from making a new
 > category of provisional deliverable, to creating a lightweight
 > project team under the DPL model, to declaring it a pop-up team with
 > a TC-owned repository. There are repositories within the OpenStack
 > namespace which are not an official part of the OpenStack
 > coordinated release, after all. Solutions which don't involve having
 > the new work take place somewhere separate, and the work involved in
 > making that separate place, which will simply be closed down as
 > transient cruft if everything goes as desired.
 > -- 
 > Jeremy Stanley
 >