Eric, Very well said, I completely agree with you. We should not hold ourselves back based upon perceptions of original intended purpose. Things do change. We have to accept that. We must normalize this fact in our actions moving forward.
That being said, I'm not entirely sure I'm personally fully aware of the arbitrary restrictions you speak of. Is there thread or a discussion out there that I can gain further context with? Thanks! -Julia On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 6:25 AM Eric Fried <openst...@fried.cc> wrote: > > It's time somebody said this. > > Every time we turn a corner or look under a rug, we find another use > case for provider traits in placement. But every time we have to have > the argument about whether that use case satisfies the original > "intended purpose" of traits. > > That's only reason I've ever been able to glean: that it (whatever "it" > is) wasn't what the architects had in mind when they came up with the > idea of traits. We're not even talking about anything that would require > changes to the placement API. Just, "Oh, that's not a *capability* - > shut it down." > > Bubble wrap was originally intended as a textured wallpaper and a > greenhouse insulator. Can we accept the fact that traits have (many, > many) uses beyond marking capabilities, and quit with the arbitrary > restrictions? > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 __________________________________________________________________________ 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
