On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Ed Leafe wrote:
OpenStack can't be all things to all people. Following the Linux analogy, we need a few companies who want to become OpenStack distributors, packagers, and supporters, in the manner of RedHat, Canonical, etc., are for Linux. As a development project, we need to be able to move fluidly, and the release cycle deadlines and freezes get in the way of that. As a packager and distributor, the release cycle scheduler *helps* immeasurably. We can't be both.
Yes. The special nature of OpenStack makes the influence of companies quite strong and has many benefits (e.g. look ma, being paid to do open source) but it also means that boundaries that are found in other somewhat similar environments are not as strong. Elsewhere in the thread there was discussion about the importance of the release cycle for marketing. Marketing for who and by whom? Surely marketing is^wought to be in the domain of the people who are making money selling aggregations of OpenStack? -- Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent __________________________________________________________________________ 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
