openstack team mailing list archive

[Duncan McGreggor <duncan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be:
>
> (0) The "2011.3 release" PPA bears false expectations and should be
> removed now. In the future, we should not provide such PPAs: 0-day
> packages for the release should be available from the "last milestone"
> PPA anyway.
>
> (1) OpenStack, as an upstream project, should focus on development
> rather than on providing a production-ready distribution.
>
> (2) We could provide "daily builds" from the stable/diablo branch for a
> variety of releases (much like what we do for the master branch), but
> those should be clearly marked "not for production use" and be
> best-effort only (like our master branch builds).
>
> (3) This should not prevent a group in the community from working on a
> project providing an "openstack on Lucid" production-ready distribution
> if they so wishes. This project would just be another distribution of
> OpenStack.

This doesn't seem like enough to me. OpenStack isn't just a library;
it's a fairly substantial collection of software and services, intended
to be used as a product. If it can't be used as a product, what's the
use?

Someone made the suggestion that a new OpenStack group be started, one
whose focus is on producing a production-ready, distribution-ready,
release of the software. So can we add one more (need some help with
wording, here...):

(4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not
focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general
stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on
behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs
that affect performance and stability of OpenStack, or prevent an
operating system from running OpenStack.

Thoughts?

d