Open Stack

Ah, good to know. Thanks!


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Michael Basnight <mbasnight at gmail.com>wrote:

> I'd like to point out that reddwarf is meant to be seen as a
> database/datastore as a service, not hosted MySQL as a service. We are
> initially targeting MySQL due to its lion share of interest.
>
> Being at the percona conference this week, we have gotten a ton of
> support/ feedback from implementers of solutions that fit on top of MySQL,
> and there is interest by companies such as tungsten, galera, percona, and
> Maria to help us define what it means to have a clusterable database
> solution, as well as a generic replication service. But by no means do we
> want to imply that this is a MySQL solution. We are trying to make a
> generic, operator configurable service that allows an installer to define
> what database as a service means for them.  We aren't picking a technology,
> persay, but instead enabling said technologies to reside in the common
> ecosystem.
>
>
> Sent from my digital shackles
>
> On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Mark Washenberger <
> mark.washenberger at markwash.net> wrote:
>
> I'm in much the same boat as Gabriel.
>
> I would also ask, does it adversely affect other DBaaS projects built on
> top of OpenStack for RedDwarf to be part of OpenStack? In other core
> projects, we tend to use drivers to expose alternate implementations to try
> to be inclusive, does RedDwarf take a similar approach? What about other
> DBaaS projects that don't work principally through a MySQL interface?
> Please correct me if I'm wildly mistaken about RedDwarf's implementation.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Gabriel Hurley <Gabriel.Hurley at nebula.com
> > wrote:
>
>> I totally agree that the application deserves consideration by the TC.
>>
>> Throwing thoughts out there:
>>
>> RedDwarf strikes me as a project that is an important part of the
>> OpenStack ecosystem, has significant value and the potential for
>> significant adoption, yet perhaps is not appropriate for the scope of
>> OpenStack proper...
>>
>> Since we're talking about Integrated Release and not "Core" doesn't it
>> ultimately comes down to "is RedDwarf of sufficient value and significance
>> to justify the allocation of the limited resources of CI, Docs, Release
>> Management, summit time, etc.?" I have little doubt that RedDwarf is
>> capable of matching the OpenStack release process and their code mostly
>> looks sane. So this is more about whether this is an appropriate allocation
>> of priority and impact on the ecosystem.
>>
>> I don't know that I have any answers here, but those are the ideas I'm
>> ruminating on.
>>
>>     - Gabriel
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Monty Taylor [mailto:mordred at inaugust.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:40 AM
>> > To: openstack-tc at lists.openstack.org
>> > Subject: Re: [openstack-tc] Reddwarf application for incubation
>> >
>> > I do not believe that we are waiting on anything from the BoD at the
>> > moment. The outcome of the IncUp joint subcommittee was to affirm the
>> > TC's power and oversight over deciding what goes into the Integrated
>> > Release. The committee, and then subsequently the TC and the BoD all
>> were
>> > on board with that outcome.
>> >
>> > Effectively, this means that the responsibility for deciding the scope
>> of the
>> > OpenStack Integrated Release falls on our shoulders as the technical
>> > leadership of the project. I think that's great.
>> >
>> > That said, it's entirely possible that we, as the TC, could develop a
>> set of
>> > guidelines describing what we think OpenStack is and isn't ...
>> > but I don't think that's particularly necessary. OpenStack is what we
>> say it is,
>> > and further its scope is the scope of the things that the community of
>> > participants show up to work on.
>> >
>> > I see no reason to not consider the reddwarf application on Tuesday.
>> >
>> > I will say, however, that given summit sessions, reddwarf is almost
>> certainly
>> > going to need to change its name...
>> >
>> > On 04/25/2013 12:55 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
>> > > AFAIK, we have yet to receive any direction from the OpenStack BoD on
>> > > the question of the scope of OpenStack. As such, especially with
>> > > somethink like Red Dwarf which appears to be completely built on top
>> > > of existing OpenStack projects, should we wait to consider the
>> > > application?
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps having somewhat of a backup in incubation considerations will
>> > > put some pressure on the BoD to more quickly answer the "what is
>> > > OpenStack" question.
>> > >
>> > > --John
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Michael Basnight wrote:
>> > >>> The following wiki page has the Reddwarf database as a service
>> > >>> application for incubation. Thank you for your consideration!
>> > >>>
>> > >>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReddwarfAppliesForIncubation
>> > >>
>> > >> Hi!
>> > >>
>> > >> I'd like to give more time for the Technical Committee members to
>> > >> recover from the Summit and look into this, so we should consider
>> > >> this application at the meeting next week (April 30).
>> > >>
>> > >> In the mean time, could you repost your application for incubation
>> > >> link to the openstack-dev ML ASAP, so that it can openly be discussed
>> > >> there ?
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >>
>> > >> -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Chair, OpenStack Technical Committee
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________ OpenStack-
>> > TC mailing
>> > >> list OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
>> > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-
>> > TC mailing
>> > > list OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
>> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>> > >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OpenStack-TC mailing list
>> > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-TC mailing list
>> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-TC mailing list
> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/attachments/20130425/cfeb8511/attachment-0001.html>