Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal
It is a sign of the maturity of OpenStack. With lots of deployment and most of them in production, the emphasis is shifting from rapid functionality additions to stability, manageability, and long term operability. -Original Message- From: Melvin Hillsman [mailto:mrhills...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 5:29 PM To: Jeremy Stanley ; openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal I think this is a good opportunity to allow some stress relief to the developer community and offer space for more discussions with operators where some operators do not feel like they are bothering/bugging developers. I believe this is the main gain for operators; my personal opinion. In general I think the opportunity costs/gains are worth it for this and it is the responsibility of the community to make the change be useful as you mentioned in your original thread Thierry. It is not a silver bullet for all of the issues folks have with the way things are done but I believe that if it does not hurt things and offers even a slight gain in some area it makes sense. Any change is not going to satisfy/dis-satisfy 100% of the constituents. -- Kind regards, Melvin Hillsman mrhills...@gmail.com mobile: +1 (832) 264-2646 irc: mrhillsman On 12/13/17, 4:39 PM, "Jeremy Stanley" wrote: On 2017-12-13 22:35:41 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > It's not really fait accompli, it's just a proposal up for discussion at > this stage. Which is the reason why I started the thread on -dev -- to > check the sanity of the change from a dev perspective first. If it makes > things harder and not simpler on that side, I don't expect the TC to > proceed. [...] With my TC hat on, regardless of what impression the developer community has on this, I plan to take subsequent operator and end-user/app-dev feedback into account as well before making any binding decisions (and expect other TC members feel the same). -- Jeremy Stanley ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal
I think this is a good opportunity to allow some stress relief to the developer community and offer space for more discussions with operators where some operators do not feel like they are bothering/bugging developers. I believe this is the main gain for operators; my personal opinion. In general I think the opportunity costs/gains are worth it for this and it is the responsibility of the community to make the change be useful as you mentioned in your original thread Thierry. It is not a silver bullet for all of the issues folks have with the way things are done but I believe that if it does not hurt things and offers even a slight gain in some area it makes sense. Any change is not going to satisfy/dis-satisfy 100% of the constituents. -- Kind regards, Melvin Hillsman mrhills...@gmail.com mobile: +1 (832) 264-2646 irc: mrhillsman On 12/13/17, 4:39 PM, "Jeremy Stanley" wrote: On 2017-12-13 22:35:41 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > It's not really fait accompli, it's just a proposal up for discussion at > this stage. Which is the reason why I started the thread on -dev -- to > check the sanity of the change from a dev perspective first. If it makes > things harder and not simpler on that side, I don't expect the TC to > proceed. [...] With my TC hat on, regardless of what impression the developer community has on this, I plan to take subsequent operator and end-user/app-dev feedback into account as well before making any binding decisions (and expect other TC members feel the same). -- Jeremy Stanley ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal
On 2017-12-13 22:35:41 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > It's not really fait accompli, it's just a proposal up for discussion at > this stage. Which is the reason why I started the thread on -dev -- to > check the sanity of the change from a dev perspective first. If it makes > things harder and not simpler on that side, I don't expect the TC to > proceed. [...] With my TC hat on, regardless of what impression the developer community has on this, I plan to take subsequent operator and end-user/app-dev feedback into account as well before making any binding decisions (and expect other TC members feel the same). -- Jeremy Stanley signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > David Medberry wrote: > While it may have desirable side-effects on the ops side (something I'm > not convinced of), the main reason for it is imho to align our rhythm > with our current development pace / developer capabilities. I felt like > we were self-imposing too many deadlines, events and coordination > processes for limited gain. > I think this is probably the right "feeling" and hopefully the change in release cycles is an appropriate response. Thanks for the background Thierry. > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal
David Medberry wrote: > Just saw some of your comments (great, thanks), and I'll weigh in if I > come up with a cogent input. > > I'd really like to see Bloomberg, RAX, and Cirrus7, Huawei, and other > ops folks respond. > > I suspect this is already a fait accompli but there are many details (as > you mentioned already in one posting about mid-cycles) to work out. It's not really fait accompli, it's just a proposal up for discussion at this stage. Which is the reason why I started the thread on -dev -- to check the sanity of the change from a dev perspective first. If it makes things harder and not simpler on that side, I don't expect the TC to proceed. While it may have desirable side-effects on the ops side (something I'm not convinced of), the main reason for it is imho to align our rhythm with our current development pace / developer capabilities. I felt like we were self-imposing too many deadlines, events and coordination processes for limited gain. Maybe I'm wrong though :) -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal
Since Bloomberg was mentioned, I agree with Thierry's rationale quite a bit. I need to read it more carefully but initial response, gut feel, very positive. When I can I'll a) read carefully b) respond on -dev Chris On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:00 PM, David Medberry wrote: > Just saw some of your comments (great, thanks), and I'll weigh in if I > come up with a cogent input. > > I'd really like to see Bloomberg, RAX, and Cirrus7, Huawei, and other ops > folks respond. > > I suspect this is already a fait accompli but there are many details (as > you mentioned already in one posting about mid-cycles) to work out. > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Sean McGinnis > wrote: > >> Would be great to get ops-side input. I didn't want to cross-post because >> I'm >> sure this is going to be a big thread and go on for a while. But I would >> encourage anyone with input to jump in on that thread. We could also >> discuss it >> separately here and I can try to answer questions or feed that input back >> in to >> the -dev side. >> >> Sean >> >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:48:01AM -0700, David Medberry wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Please read Thierry's email to the openstack-dev list this morning and >> > follow the thread (getting long already just two hours in.) >> > >> > This references some ideas and concerns that have come from the Ops >> > community, but this is specifically a -dev thread (but I suspect a lot >> of >> > ramifications for ops as well.) >> > >> > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-Dece >> mber/125473.html >> > >> > title is: >> > Switching to longer development cycles >> > (and if you are sub'd to openstack-dev you will find it in there.) >> > >> > >> > The thread of emails is at least 10+ deep already with folks weighing >> in on >> > all sides of the aisle. >> > >> > -dave >> >> > ___ >> > OpenStack-operators mailing list >> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >> >> > > ___ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > > -- Chris Morgan ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal
Just saw some of your comments (great, thanks), and I'll weigh in if I come up with a cogent input. I'd really like to see Bloomberg, RAX, and Cirrus7, Huawei, and other ops folks respond. I suspect this is already a fait accompli but there are many details (as you mentioned already in one posting about mid-cycles) to work out. On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > Would be great to get ops-side input. I didn't want to cross-post because > I'm > sure this is going to be a big thread and go on for a while. But I would > encourage anyone with input to jump in on that thread. We could also > discuss it > separately here and I can try to answer questions or feed that input back > in to > the -dev side. > > Sean > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:48:01AM -0700, David Medberry wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Please read Thierry's email to the openstack-dev list this morning and > > follow the thread (getting long already just two hours in.) > > > > This references some ideas and concerns that have come from the Ops > > community, but this is specifically a -dev thread (but I suspect a lot of > > ramifications for ops as well.) > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017- > December/125473.html > > > > title is: > > Switching to longer development cycles > > (and if you are sub'd to openstack-dev you will find it in there.) > > > > > > The thread of emails is at least 10+ deep already with folks weighing in > on > > all sides of the aisle. > > > > -dave > > > ___ > > OpenStack-operators mailing list > > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > > ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal
Would be great to get ops-side input. I didn't want to cross-post because I'm sure this is going to be a big thread and go on for a while. But I would encourage anyone with input to jump in on that thread. We could also discuss it separately here and I can try to answer questions or feed that input back in to the -dev side. Sean On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:48:01AM -0700, David Medberry wrote: > Hi all, > > Please read Thierry's email to the openstack-dev list this morning and > follow the thread (getting long already just two hours in.) > > This references some ideas and concerns that have come from the Ops > community, but this is specifically a -dev thread (but I suspect a lot of > ramifications for ops as well.) > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-December/125473.html > > title is: > Switching to longer development cycles > (and if you are sub'd to openstack-dev you will find it in there.) > > > The thread of emails is at least 10+ deep already with folks weighing in on > all sides of the aisle. > > -dave > ___ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
[Openstack-operators] thierry's longer dev cycle proposal
Hi all, Please read Thierry's email to the openstack-dev list this morning and follow the thread (getting long already just two hours in.) This references some ideas and concerns that have come from the Ops community, but this is specifically a -dev thread (but I suspect a lot of ramifications for ops as well.) http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-December/125473.html title is: Switching to longer development cycles (and if you are sub'd to openstack-dev you will find it in there.) The thread of emails is at least 10+ deep already with folks weighing in on all sides of the aisle. -dave ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
