Open Stack

Yes it's still a thing and no it's not being deprecated, I heard other things from other people at rackspace say the opposite, so maybe u misunderstood adrian (if or if  not rackspace is involved is there choice in the end).

So yes it's still being actively developed and yes it's gaining traction. I don't see that traction slowing down. There was a lot if summit sessions on it that I did so I'm not sure where u heard that it's not active. 

And as for spiff sure can use that also, but IMHO u will come to the same conclusions I did, that I believe spiff is functionally inferior, your mileage may vary though. Likely there are use cases for both in the end; feel free to do your own investigation into what each offers. Spiff to me lacked a well defined state machine, was to complex and did not have foundational semantics that taskflow does have (extremely important ones like resumption, reversion and state persistence...). But feel free to make up your own mind, it's a free world after all...

-Josh

Sent from my really tiny device...

> On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:35 PM, "Robert Collins" <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> 
> So I'm curious - is taskflow still a thing? Adrian was saying in HK
> that Rackspace wasn't investing in it any more as another library -
> Spiffy? - was functionally superior, and there is no need to reinvent
> the wheel.
> 
> If thats the case, should Mistral be built on Spiffy, and taskflow deprecated?
> 
> -Rob
> 
>> On 12 November 2013 13:56, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>> Sounds good,
>> 
>> Will do when I get back from HK, still here exploring :-)
>> 
>> Sent from my really tiny device...
>> 
>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 10:17 PM, "Monty Taylor" <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ok. Cool. Let's just put an upper bound on it for now then (mainly
>>> because it's listed as 0.1, so that version to me suggests that it might
>>> still have breaking API churn)
>>> 
>>>> On 11/11/2013 07:53 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>>>> I can put an upper bound on the version, that's fine with me. I'd rather not avoid adding taskflow to wait until some new preemptive gating process is in place. That doesn't exactly feel fair to the people creating taskflow or the people using it, especially since people are integrating it at this moment and it would be sad for their work to be lost due to a requirement line.
>>>> 
>>>> As for part of oslo, cc'ing Doug since from my talks with him seem to be that it's just a library and to encourage the growth of useful libraries the red tape isn't needed (aka, taskflow has no strong ties to oslo and I'm not sure it should).
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my really tiny device...
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 7:33 PM, "Monty Taylor" <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is a change up to add taskflow to the global requirements. I have
>>>>> no problem with this in principle, but it's one more that's in the set
>>>>> of things like pecan, wsme and friends that are in the set of things
>>>>> that Sean talked about in preemptively gate the universe.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'd like to not add it until we have a plan for at least assymetrical
>>>>> gating, so that changes to taskflow at least can't break cinder and friends.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Further, I think we might need to discuss how to include libraries such
>>>>> as this. Should taskflow be a part of oslo?
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-Infra mailing list
>> OpenStack-Infra at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
> Distinguished Technologist
> HP Converged Cloud