On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Brian Haley <haleyb....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 05/22/2018 04:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: [trim]
> I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from > StarlingX into upstream repos. That seems backwards from how this should > have been done (i.e. upstream first), and I don't see how a project would > prioritize that over other work. There is definitely value to be gained for both projects in terms of a different point of view that might not have been able to play out in the public community, but since we're dealing with squashed commits of changes, it is really hard for us to delineate history/origin of code fragments, and without that it makes it near impossible for projects to even help them reconcile their technical debt because of that and the lacking context surrounding that. It would be so much more friendly to the community if we had stacks of patch files that we could work with git. >> I'm truly wondering why was this even open-sourced to begin with? I'm as >> big a supporter of open source as anyone, but I'm really struggling to >> comprehend the business, technical, or marketing decisions behind this >> action. Please help me understand. What am I missing? > > > I'm just as confused. Can I add myself to the list of confused people wanting to understand better? I can see and understand value, but context and understanding as to why as I mentioned above is going to be the main limiter for interaction. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev