openstack-poc team mailing list archive

[Ewan Mellor <Ewan.Mellor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openstack-poc-bounces+ewan.mellor=citrix.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:openstack-poc-
> bounces+ewan.mellor=citrix.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Bryce
> Sent: 20 January 2011 21:15
> To: openstack-poc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-poc] Discussion Item - 2011 Charter and Scope
> 
> > 0. Can we make this two (or three) proposals? I agree with the
> scoping and charter aspects, but disagree with some of the service
> architecture, and I think they should be addressed separately. (The
> third proposal would be 'how projects are evaluated for
> core/affiliated' status, which doesn't appear in here).
> 
> The actual process of evaluation of projects should be a separate item.
> We'll publish separately.

I agree that the service architecture doesn't belong here.  I think that it's sufficiently contentious (I had my own, different, concerns) that it doesn't belong in a charter.
 
> > 3. I remember some push-back on the "C, C++ and Python" statement,
> but I'm personally fine with "C++ and Python".

I was the one who objected the first time.  My point is that I don't see any reason to bless C++ than, say, Java.  They are both equally widely available, and both would cause equal amounts of pain and brain-death if you tried to use them for something like Nova.

Why get into language wars when we're not using anything other than Python anyway?

We could turn this into something vaguer, like "Implementation languages and libraries must be widely and freely available."

Cheers,

Ewan.