On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 14:06 +0100, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 10 June 2014 09:33, Mark McLoughlin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Avoiding dragging the project into those sort of politics is something > > I'm really keen on, and why I think the word "certification" is best > > avoided so we can focus on what we're actually trying to achieve. > > Avoiding those sorts of politics - 'XXX says it is a certified config, > it doesn't work, cinder is junk' - is why I'd rather the cinder core > team had a certification program, at least we've some control then and > *other* people can't impose their idea of certification on us. I think > politics happens, whether you will it or not, so a far more sensible > stance is to play it out in advance.
Exposing which configurations are actively "tested" is a perfectly sane thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this "certification" is necessary to achieve your goals. I don't know what you mean be "others imposing their idea of certification". Mark. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
