openstack-poc team mailing list archive

[John Dickinson <john.dickinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

> Eric Day wrote:
>> Yup, sounds accurate. Still waiting on the integration bits, and
>> once things are functional and features/drawbacks were documented,
>> make a final call. There were also talks of doing a larger community
>> vote (like PPB/PTL votes) to make sure we're not changing only for
>> a vocal minority.
> 
> +1
> 
> The idea is to come up with a clear cost/benefit analysis and present it
> to the PPB which will estimate if the benefit outweighs the cost for the
> project.
> 
> We already know from the design summit that developers seem to prefer
> the tool they are the most used to -- the question now is how costly it
> is to move. From the tools integration standpoint, but also other aspects.

It seems that I misremembered. We (the swift team) were simply waiting for the conversion tools to be done (which they are) and for us to have the time to transition the code (which will happen soon).

That being said, I am looking for a way for the swift devs to use the tools of their choice (git/github in this case) and a way for the Openstack organization to package and have visibility into the swift project. Having gone through one round of a release now, I do see some great advantages for Launchpad's packaging process. However, I would like to see swift moved to github as soon as possible, probably with a Launchpad mirror of the code to maintain the packaging advantages. Basically, I think that the packagers should use their preferred tool (Launchpad) and the devs should use their preferred tool (git). And for that matter, I'm a fan of independent projects choosing their own dev tools as long as they have integration with the packaging team.

--John

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature