openstack team mailing list archive

[Bryan Taylor <btaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/11/2011 09:02 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Linear versioning is of very limited use.
If OpenStack wants to keep a clear definition of what the OpenStack CORE 
is, then this needs to evolve linearly (austin, bexar, cactus, diablo, 
essex, etc...). I think you could make an argument that this should be 
left to deployers, but for now I think it's accepted that the dev model 
that produces the OpenStack core should release an unbranched tree. You 
could compare the ecosystem around linux to that of java. The linux 
model allows RedHat and Ubuntu to ship patched up versions of the kernel 
that never actually correspond exactly to a formal kernel version. Java, 
on the other hand simply has a bunch of independent JVM makers that have 
to pass a test suite to call themselves java, but are otherwise 
independent linearly advancing codebases.

Extensions are great, and you could, in theory, make everything an 
extension. I certainly think lots of stuff should be supplied in a 
pluggable way, but making everything be an extension seems over the top.