> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 26 September 2014 22:51
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Thoughts on OpenStack Layers and a Big Tent
> model
>
> Heh, I just got off the phone with
Robert Collins on Friday, September 26, 2014 3:33 PM wrote:
> On 27 September 2014 09:43, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > Hi James, thanks for the corrections/explanations. A comment inline
> (and a
> > further question) :)
>
> > Oh, good to know. Sorry, my information about Triple-O's undercloud
> setup is
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-09-26 14:43:40 -0700:
> Hi James, thanks for the corrections/explanations. A comment inline (and
> a further question) :)
>
> On 09/26/2014 05:35 PM, James Slagle wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >> Heh, I just got off the p
On 27 September 2014 09:43, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Hi James, thanks for the corrections/explanations. A comment inline (and a
> further question) :)
> Oh, good to know. Sorry, my information about Triple-O's undercloud setup is
> clearly outdated. I thought that the undercloud was build from source
>
Hi James, thanks for the corrections/explanations. A comment inline (and
a further question) :)
On 09/26/2014 05:35 PM, James Slagle wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Heh, I just got off the phone with Monty talking about this :) Comments
inline...
On 09/22/2014 03:11
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Heh, I just got off the phone with Monty talking about this :) Comments
> inline...
>
> On 09/22/2014 03:11 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
>>
>> The quality designation is really important for the operator
>> community who are trying to work out what we can
Heh, I just got off the phone with Monty talking about this :) Comments
inline...
On 09/22/2014 03:11 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
The quality designation is really important for the operator
community who are trying to work out what we can give to our end
users.
So, I think it's important to point ou
On 09/18/2014 02:53 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
Hey all,
I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
http://inaugust.com/post/108
Enjoy.
I enjoyed your post (though I don't agree with everythi
On Sep 26, 2014, at 1:25 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> That said, singling out the test infrastructure (3) and the release
> management (2) is a bit unfair to other horizontal efforts, like
> Documentation, Translations, or general QA, which also suffer from a
> scale issue. The Docs team, in part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/25/2014 08:42 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> It seems that this discussion has actually illustrated shortcomings in our
> answers to 3 separate questions, and people have been throwing out ideas
> that attempt to solve all 3. Perhaps we need to
Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> The three questions are:
>
> 1. Which projects are “part of openstack”?
> 2. Which projects are released as a single unit?
> 3. Which projects are tested together
That's a good summary, yes. Currently we have a number of horizontal
teams, which must support equally an
On 09/26/2014 03:42 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>> So I guess I'm saying:
>>
>>Lets decouple 'what is openstack' from 'what we test together on
>> every commit'.
>
> It seems that this discussion has actually illustrated shortcoming
On Sep 25, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> So I guess I'm saying:
>
>Lets decouple 'what is openstack' from 'what we test together on
> every commit'.
It seems that this discussion has actually illustrated shortcomings in our
answers to 3 separate questions, and people have been
On 26 September 2014 10:28, Zane Bitter wrote:
> So it goes without saying that I support the latter part ("functionally test
> against their real dependencies"). I'm not convinced by the idea of not
> having an integrated release though. Time-based releases seem to be pretty
> popular lately - t
On 25/09/14 15:12, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Sep 24, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 18/09/14 14:53, Monty Taylor wrote:
Hey all,
I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
On Sep 24, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 18/09/14 14:53, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
>> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>>
>> http://inaugust.com/post/108
On 09/24/2014 07:55 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 18/09/14 14:53, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
>> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me
>> edit.
>>
>> http://inaugust.com/post/108
>
> Tha
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 18/09/14 14:53, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
>> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me
>> edit.
>>
>> http://inaugust.com/post
On 2014-09-24 13:55:57 -0400 (-0400), Zane Bitter wrote:
[...]
> * Assumption #2: Yawnoc's Law
>
> Don't bother Googling that, I just made it up. It's the reverse of
> Conway's Law:
>
> Infra engineers who design governance structures for OpenStack
> are constrained to produce designs that ar
On 09/24/2014 02:48 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2014-09-23 21:14:47 -0700:
No one helped me edit this :)
http://rbtcollins.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/what-poles-for-the-tent/
I hope I haven't zoned out and just channelled someone else here ;)
This sounds li
On 19/09/14 22:37, Monty Taylor wrote:
I think we can do what you're saying and generalize a little bit. What
if we declared programs, as needed, when we think there is a need to
"pick a winner". (I think we can all agree that early winner picking is
an unintended but very real side effect of the
Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2014-09-23 21:14:47 -0700:
> No one helped me edit this :)
>
> http://rbtcollins.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/what-poles-for-the-tent/
>
> I hope I haven't zoned out and just channelled someone else here ;)
>
This sounds like "API's are what matters." You d
On 18/09/14 14:53, Monty Taylor wrote:
Hey all,
I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
http://inaugust.com/post/108
Thanks Monty, I think there are some very interesting ideas in here.
Thanks for the summary, Sean. I couldn't follow the thread and this
pointed me to the things I needed to read.
On 09/24/2014 02:44 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/18/2014 02:53 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
>> a blog
On 09/18/2014 02:53 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>
> http://inaugust.com/post/108
When I first read Monty's post, my basic reaction was
I think Joe's idea pretty sums it up, ASF model is definitely worth
following (Mesos is awesome). Non layer #1 projects will still be
shepherded but not that closely coupled to make OpenStack over-bloated.
Incubation projects can't be just dropped.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Joe Gordon wrot
No one helped me edit this :)
http://rbtcollins.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/what-poles-for-the-tent/
I hope I haven't zoned out and just channelled someone else here ;)
-Rob
On 19 September 2014 06:53, Monty Taylor wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff.
On Sep 23, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Devananda van der Veen wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> One is a technical discussion that has nothing at all to do with
>>> governance. The other is entirely about governance.
>>>
>>> If we are no longer
On 09/23/2014 02:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> The main goal of incubation, as we did it in the past cycles, is a
> learning period where the new project aligns enough with the existing
> ones so that it integrates with them (Horizon shows Sahara dashboard)
> and won't break them around release ti
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya
wrote:
>
> On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:40 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> > If we are no longer incubating *programs*, which are the teams of people
> who we would like to ensure are involved in OpenStack governance, then how
> do we make that decision?
Devananda van der Veen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> One is a technical discussion that has nothing at all to do with governance.
>> The other is entirely about governance.
>>
>> If we are no longer incubating *programs*, which are the teams of people who
>> w
On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:40 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> If we are no longer incubating *programs*, which are the teams of people who
> we would like to ensure are involved in OpenStack governance, then how do we
> make that decision? From a practical standpoint, how do we make a list of
> eligibl
Doug Hellmann wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2014, at 5:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
>> Devananda van der Veen wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Doug Hellmann
>>> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Devananda van der Veen
wrote:
> One of the primary effects of integration,
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2014, at 8:05 PM, Devananda van der Veen
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 22, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Devananda van der Veen
>>> wrote:
>>>
One of the primary effects of integ
On 22 September 2014 23:14, Robert Collins wrote:
> I am not at all sure we've prevented other flowers blooming -
> and I hate the idea that we have done that.
I've certainly sat around at discussions which shut down hard with
somebody making the statement that 'that is TripleO's field and they
d
On Sep 22, 2014, at 8:05 PM, Devananda van der Veen
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Devananda van der Veen
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One of the primary effects of integration, as far as the release
>>> process is concerned, is being
On Sep 23, 2014, at 5:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Devananda van der Veen wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> On Sep 22, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Devananda van der Veen
>>> wrote:
>>>
One of the primary effects of integration, as far as the release
proces
Robert Collins wrote:
> On 19 September 2014 22:29, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> ...
>> current Heat team is not really interested in maintaining them. What's
>> the point of being under the same program then ? And TripleO is not the
>> only way to deploy OpenStack, but its mere existence (and name)
>>
Devananda van der Veen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Devananda van der Veen
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One of the primary effects of integration, as far as the release
>>> process is concerned, is being allowed to co-gate with other
>>> inte
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Devananda van der Veen
> wrote:
>
>> One of the primary effects of integration, as far as the release
>> process is concerned, is being allowed to co-gate with other
>> integrated projects, and having those pr
On 23 September 2014 10:32, Dean Troyer wrote:
> tl;dr: we're not broken, but under stress...changing (outside) expectations
> requires changing the expression of the model...while it's called a 'stack'
> maybe it's multiple tiered stacks. MultiStack!
...
>
> This is one reason for multiple laye
tl;dr: we're not broken, but under stress...changing (outside)
expectations requires changing the expression of the model...while it's
called a 'stack' maybe it's multiple tiered stacks. MultiStack!
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Doug Hellmann
wrote:
> The point of integration is to add the
On 19 September 2014 22:29, Thierry Carrez wrote:
...
> current Heat team is not really interested in maintaining them. What's
> the point of being under the same program then ? And TripleO is not the
> only way to deploy OpenStack, but its mere existence (and name)
> prevented other flowers to bl
On Sep 22, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Devananda van der Veen
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Sep 2014, at 20:53, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>
On Sep 19, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wro
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
>
>>
>> On 22 Sep 2014, at 20:53, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 19, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>>
Monty Taylor wrote:
> I've recently been thinking a lot about
On Sep 22, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
>
> On 22 Sep 2014, at 20:53, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>
>>> Monty Taylor wrote:
I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
a blog post which Jim Blai
On 22 Sep 2014, at 20:53, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
>> Monty Taylor wrote:
>>> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
>>> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>>>
>>> h
On Sep 18, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>
> http://inaugust.com/post/108
>
> Enjoy.
I’ve read through this a few times
On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:37 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 09/19/2014 03:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Monty Taylor wrote:
>>> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
>>> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>>>
>>> http://ina
On Sep 19, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Monty Taylor wrote:
>> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
>> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>>
>> http://inaugust.com/post/108
>
> Hey Monty,
>
> As you can i
FWIW, I think this is a great approach to evolving our thinking of the projects
and ecosystem around OpenStack. I’m far too removed these days from the details
of the day-to-day running of the programs and projects to comment on details.
But, I’ve long felt a need to go beyond the simple core +
Great conversations here.
I'd like to echo Dean Troyer's comment on Suggestion 9, for multi-cloud
span node pooling ,we need standards. It'll make life easier when user
tools could be configured against a limit as well as standard set of rules,
instead of numerous different rules by vendors. It is
Hey
On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 11:53 -0700, Monty Taylor wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>
> http://inaugust.com/post/108
Lots of great stuff here, but too much
John Dickinson wrote:
> I propose that we can get the benefits of Monty's proposal and implement all
> of his concrete suggestions (which are fantastic) by slightly adjusting our
> usage of the program/project concepts.
>
> I had originally hoped that the "program" concept would have been a litt
On 09/19/2014 10:50 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:14 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2014, at 5:46 AM, John Griffith
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Thierry Carrez
>>> wrote:
>>> Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
Great writeup. I
On 09/19/2014 10:14 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2014, at 5:46 AM, John Griffith
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Thierry Carrez
>> wrote: Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>>> Great writeup. I think there are some great concrete suggestions
>>> here.
>>>
>>> A couple
On 09/19/2014 03:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Monty Taylor wrote:
>> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
>> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>>
>> http://inaugust.com/post/108
>
> Hey Monty,
>
> As you can imagine, I
On 09/19/2014 01:15 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2014, at 3:33 AM, Thierry Carrez
> wrote:
>
>> Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>>> Great writeup. I think there are some great concrete
>>> suggestions here.
>>>
>>> A couple more:
>>>
>>> 1. I think we need a better name for Layer #1
On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:14 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2014, at 5:46 AM, John Griffith
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Thierry Carrez
>> wrote:
>> Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>>> Great writeup. I think there are some great concrete suggestions here.
>>>
>>
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Adam Lawson wrote:
> Can someone do a small little Visio or other visual to explain what's
> being
>
Sean's blog post included a nice diagram that is Monty's starting point:
https://dague.net/2014/08/26/openstack-as-layers/
AIUI Monty's Layer 1 is basically the
On Sep 19, 2014, at 3:33 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>> Great writeup. I think there are some great concrete suggestions here.
>>
>> A couple more:
>>
>> 1. I think we need a better name for Layer #1 that actually represents what
>> the goal of it is: Infrastructure
On Sep 19, 2014, at 5:46 AM, John Griffith wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> > Great writeup. I think there are some great concrete suggestions here.
> >
> > A couple more:
> >
> > 1. I think we need a better name for Layer #1 th
Can someone do a small little Visio or other visual to explain what's being
proposed here? My head sported a small crack at around the 5-6th page...
; ) But seriously, I couldn't understand the proposal. Maybe I'm not the
audience which is fine, just saying, the words got in the way. Sounds like
a
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> > Great writeup. I think there are some great concrete suggestions here.
> >
> > A couple more:
> >
> > 1. I think we need a better name for Layer #1 that actually represents
> what the goal of it is: Infrastruct
Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> Great writeup. I think there are some great concrete suggestions here.
>
> A couple more:
>
> 1. I think we need a better name for Layer #1 that actually represents what
> the goal of it is: Infrastructure Services?
> 2. We need to be be open to having other Layer #1s
Monty Taylor wrote:
> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>
> http://inaugust.com/post/108
Hey Monty,
As you can imagine, I read that post with great attention. I generally
like the
Great writeup. I think there are some great concrete suggestions here.
A couple more:
1. I think we need a better name for Layer #1 that actually represents what the
goal of it is: Infrastructure Services?
2. We need to be be open to having other Layer #1s within the community. We
should allow
On 09/18/2014 01:12 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
>> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
>> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>>
>
> Thanks for writing that Monty. Sea
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> I've recently been thinking a lot about Sean's Layers stuff. So I wrote
> a blog post which Jim Blair and Devananda were kind enough to help me edit.
>
Thanks for writing that Monty. Sean took a concept meant for organizing
the relationship
69 matches
Mail list logo
