On 06/27/2013 12:54 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On 06/27/2013 05:04 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
>> Let's do it! (On Thierry's timetable so that we get valuable practice
>> talking about onboarding programs.)
>
> Sounds good to me as long as we all agree that Localization/Translations
> are a techni
On 06/27/2013 05:04 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
> Let's do it! (On Thierry's timetable so that we get valuable practice
> talking about onboarding programs.)
Sounds good to me as long as we all agree that Localization/Translations
are a technical issue and that they're part of OpenStack's mission to
em
I'd really like to see Translation be the first program we bring in after
bringing in the first batch. Translation and localization meets the
criteria for a program. Their inclusion in a second round will help us
learn how to bring in a valuable program, identify the right owners, and
promote the a
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On 06/27/2013 10:10 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Mind you, I'm not closing the door or anything: translations can
>> certainly apply to become a program (once/when we establish them). The
>> goal of the "initial batch" is to catch up with the current state of
>> "official
On 06/27/2013 10:10 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> It's not as clear of a slam dunk as the other (initial) programs due to
> the nature of their "deliverable", which is consumed by the projects
> themselves, so it's a bit of a corner case. Additionally, the reach of
> the Technical Committee is suppos
Tom Fifield wrote:
>> Translations is another "horizontal effort", something that applies to
>> all projects, like release management or vulnerability handling, but
>> where contributions actually end up being applied as patches to other
>> projects, rather than having their own repos. Another exam
On 26/06/13 22:20, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 06/24/2013 11:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
To match with the current state we would end up with:
* Projects (Nova, Neutron, Swift, Glance, Keystone, Horizon, Cinder,
Ceilometer, Heat)
* Incubated projects (Trove, Ironic)
* Prog
On 06/26/2013 08:20 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 06/24/2013 11:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
To match with the current state we would end up with:
* Projects (Nova, Neutron, Swift, Glance, Keystone, Horizon, Cinder,
Ceilometer, Heat)
* Incubated projects (Trove, Ironic)
*
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 14:15 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> 4. Be potentially able to define a set of projects that are "the
> OpenStack product" (markmc)
Random thought on this ...
If one of the release deliverables was e.g. a openstack.org/havana page
which included links to the tarballs of the
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On 06/24/2013 11:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> To match with the current state we would end up with:
>> * Projects (Nova, Neutron, Swift, Glance, Keystone, Horizon, Cinder,
>> Ceilometer, Heat)
>> * Incubated projects (Trove, Ironic)
>> * Programs (Oslo, Infrastructure,
James E. Blair wrote:
> Thierry Carrez writes:
>> James E. Blair wrote:
>>> * Any repo associated with an official OpenStack program is entitled to
>>>use the openstack org.
>>> * Programs may request an org for their program, with justification,
>>>but in general we should limit the num
On 06/24/2013 11:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> To match with the current state we would end up with:
> * Projects (Nova, Neutron, Swift, Glance, Keystone, Horizon, Cinder,
> Ceilometer, Heat)
> * Incubated projects (Trove, Ironic)
> * Programs (Oslo, Infrastructure, Documentation, QA)
I think we
On 26 June 2013 02:34, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> In the case of TripleO, does it produce anything to be included in the
> release? I think it should, but it's not the entirety of its mission
> statement either. That, for me, is the really interesting thing to
> discuss about TripleO - what does i
Thierry Carrez writes:
> James E. Blair wrote:
>> I propose that in the future, we adopt the following strategy:
>>
>> * Any repo associated with an official OpenStack program is entitled to
>>use the openstack org.
>> * Programs may request an org for their program, with justification,
>>
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 18:58 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > [1] - ok, some caveats on what I mean by "integrated release" ...
> >
> > We're producing software for people who want to build clouds. A software
> > "product", for want of a better term.
> >
> > Right now, we
James E. Blair wrote:
> I propose that in the future, we adopt the following strategy:
>
> * Any repo associated with an official OpenStack program is entitled to
>use the openstack org.
> * Programs may request an org for their program, with justification,
>but in general we should limi
I like the programs idea and the direction this thread is going.
As we reconsider the relationship of repos and programs to the OpenStack
project, I think we should include one more aspect of taxonomy.
We have several orgs on github related to openstack:
openstack/
openstack-infra/
opensta
On 06/25/2013 12:42 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Anne Gentle wrote:
>> Dare I ask, what about TryStack? Infra seems to get a ton under it but
>> that's where I'd place it if I had to state a preference.
>
> I'd see TryStack as a separate program, with the goal of maintaining an
> infrastructure t
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> [1] - ok, some caveats on what I mean by "integrated release" ...
>
> We're producing software for people who want to build clouds. A software
> "product", for want of a better term.
>
> Right now, we say the official "service projects" (definition: a project
> which expo
Anne Gentle wrote:
> Dare I ask, what about TryStack? Infra seems to get a ton under it but
> that's where I'd place it if I had to state a preference.
I'd see TryStack as a separate program, with the goal of maintaining an
infrastructure that lets users play with OpenStack. That goal sounds a
bit
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> If you look at the Oslo "mission statement(s)":
>
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo
>
> The Oslo program produces a set of python libraries containing
> infrastructure code shared by OpenStack projects. The APIs provided by
> these libraries should be high qu
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 13:14 -0400, Monty Taylor wrote:
> > * Where would openstack/requirements fall ?
>
> I think openstack/requirements sits under oslo - although right now
> it's a joint-venture between oslo and infra.
If you look at the Oslo "mission statement(s)":
https://wiki.openstack.
Hey,
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 11:50 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> The TC would bless the *mission statement* of the program rather than
> the specific set of projects implemented to reach that goal.
This is a really nice way of putting it and you've captured a bunch of
other stuff very well too.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
> > Does everything need to live under a program to get accounted for?
> > Devstack isn't really a natural fit into the existing categories. Those
> > of us that work on it tend to span a lot of categories anyway. I think
>
On 06/25/2013 05:51 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>> So, doing [the 6 monthly] releases and stable branches seem like the
>> same thing to me : it's packaging up the project output for
>> consumption by redistributors (and low-resource risk-averse orgs).
>> That totally makes se
Sean Dague wrote:
> Does everything need to live under a program to get accounted for?
> Devstack isn't really a natural fit into the existing categories. Those
> of us that work on it tend to span a lot of categories anyway. I think
> as long as we acknowledge that it's an important project, and i
On 06/24/2013 01:14 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 06/24/2013 05:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi everyone,
"Official" OpenStack projects are those under the oversight of the
Technical Committee, and contributing to one grants you ATC status
(which in turn you use to elect the Technical Committee
Robert Collins wrote:
> So, doing [the 6 monthly] releases and stable branches seem like the
> same thing to me : it's packaging up the project output for
> consumption by redistributors (and low-resource risk-averse orgs).
> That totally makes sense to me as a program - but I think calling it
> 'p
On 25 June 2013 20:19, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> without a code repo today, so it's a moot point : I suggest saying
>> that until it is revisited, there cannot be a Program w/o a code repo.
>
> What we have today is a number of "efforts" that are pretty central to
> OpenStack (like producing relea
Robert Collins wrote:
>> To match with the current state we would end up with:
>> * Projects (Nova, Neutron, Swift, Glance, Keystone, Horizon, Cinder,
>> Ceilometer, Heat)
>> * Incubated projects (Trove, Ironic)
>> * Programs (Oslo, Infrastructure, Documentation, QA)
>
> Maybe Programs should have
Monty Taylor wrote:
> I'd actually like to revisit this question as a separate thing.
> Honestly, I want to see bug work and review work as part of the ATC
> calculation. Seriously - both are hard and thankless. I think those are
> really the only two places where work on the above stuff can 'fall
Mark Washenberger wrote:
>> * There are efforts that span multiple projects but work directly on the
>> project code repositories, like integrated release, or stable
>> maintenance, or vulnerability management (collectively called for the
>> convenience of this thread "horizontal ef
On 24 June 2013 21:50, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> To match with the current state we would end up with:
> * Projects (Nova, Neutron, Swift, Glance, Keystone, Horizon, Cinder,
> Ceilometer, Heat)
> * Incubated projects (Trove, Ironic)
> * Programs (Oslo, Infrastructure, Documentation, QA)
Maybe Prog
On 06/24/2013 05:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> "Official" OpenStack projects are those under the oversight of the
> Technical Committee, and contributing to one grants you ATC status
> (which in turn you use to elect the Technical Committee members).
>
> The list of official p
Thanks for kicking off this discussion! I think the idea of programs has
fantastic promise.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> "Official" OpenStack projects are those under the oversight of the
> Technical Committee, and contributing to one grants you ATC s
Hi everyone,
"Official" OpenStack projects are those under the oversight of the
Technical Committee, and contributing to one grants you ATC status
(which in turn you use to elect the Technical Committee members).
The list of official projects used to be simple (Swift+Nova) but
nowadays it is rath
36 matches
Mail list logo
