| mnaser | ^ this is awful | 03:36 |
|---|---|---|
| mnaser | ironic feels like it just wants to walk it's own path | 03:37 |
| mnaser | had i seen this kinda stuff happening i should have finally decided to run for tc again but i guess i get to cheer and push from the sidelines this time | 03:38 |
| mnaser | but lord please do not split things out of openstack | 03:39 |
| mnaser | that's an awful idea at killing the community even more | 03:39 |
| mnaser | ironic is already a unicorn and we don't need it to be even more of a unicorn | 03:39 |
| *** ralonsoh_ooo is now known as ralonsoh | 07:32 | |
| noonedeadpunk | Well, it's not limited to Ironic to be frank. And how I see that is some projects care about their release naming more and want to promote them more, then openstack coordinted release, if for their users project versions matter more. And getting more contributors diversity into projects from outside of opestack ecosystem is good, especially when we're struggling that much to get it from inside. | 09:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | With that being said, I think that coordinated release must be specified this way or another regardless. So maybe we should just indeed give 2 options of wording for projects to pick from, first that will be focused on project version and secod focused on coordinated release. | 09:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | At least for me personally it's always useful to get both. While it's covered on https://releases.openstack.org/ it's still handy to see some kind of mapping on project docs or renos | 09:35 |
| noonedeadpunk | But with current situation with contributions I totally see why we need to try thinking outside of the box and if some project is valuable as a standalone - it's a good thing | 09:42 |
| noonedeadpunk | Let's also look at attempt of making barbican to be usable as standalone service by allowing keystone_authtoken to interact with keycloack without keystone | 09:43 |
| noonedeadpunk | So I see that there's an overall tendency to adapt and use services under opensatck umberella as standalone one or outside of complete stack | 11:00 |
| *** ralonsoh is now known as ralonsoh_lunch | 12:51 | |
| mnaser | That’s the thing. If Barbican wants to use Keycloak for auth… then why not update keystoneauth or something under Oslo so all projects can benefit | 13:19 |
| mnaser | Also I still disagree. I think the only one that sticks out here is Ironic | 13:19 |
| mnaser | I think the only people who are convinced that people think openstack has a poor image that’s “dying” are some openstack people who’ve seen the contribution numbers go down | 13:20 |
| mnaser | People still want to run openstack and they are convinced it’s the way to solve all their issues | 13:21 |
| *** ralonsoh_lunch is now known as ralonsoh | 13:31 | |
| *** dasm|off is now known as dasm | 14:12 | |
| noonedeadpunk | Well. I might miss some insights here or well, it might be my perception, as I was thinking not in a way - bad image of openstack can affect in a way on project, but more in a way to underline that project is part of openstack or under openstack umbrella, but it can be consumed as a standalone one. | 15:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | And then for users that consume it as standalone, coordinated release might not matter much comparing to project versions. | 15:05 |
| noonedeadpunk | From that prespective I can relate on will to put more focus on project versioning but mentioning openstack coordinated release should be still a thing | 15:06 |
| mnaser | i dont think people are not using apache kafka because it's apache is a web server | 15:06 |
| knikolla[m] | finally caught up on above discussion | 15:09 |
| fungi | people were loudly proclaiming openstack "dead" even before we peaked at (what was in my opinion unsustainable) contributor activity levels | 15:11 |
| knikolla[m] | before we removed the tags framework, there was a tag advertising projects that supported being used standalone https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/722399 | 15:12 |
| knikolla[m] | some of the discussion there also follows the same notes | 15:12 |
| fungi | there were several cadres of contributors who pulled out circa 2013-2015 over a variety of disagreements and went on to start other projects/products, but perceived themselves as fighting for a common pool of investors, contributors and public mind share. in order to make their new efforts seem worthwhile they needed to run some rather nasty smear campaigns claiming openstack was dying or | 15:13 |
| fungi | only good for obsolete technologies nobody should be using | 15:13 |
| fungi | and those messages really stuck with people. instead of just calling them liars, we've been taking the high road, reminding everyone we're still here, and that the project is continuing to improve and gain in popularity | 15:14 |
| *** JasonF is now known as JayF | 15:15 | |
| dansmith | I'm not sure this is as much about ironic people saying openstack is dead, as they are just wanting to be their own thing regardless. and as mnaser said, I think that's been a long-running ironic thing | 15:15 |
| fungi | i wa responding to mnaser's comment, "the only people who are convinced that people think openstack has a poor image that’s “dying” are some openstack people who’ve seen the contribution numbers go down" | 15:16 |
| dansmith | ack | 15:16 |
| mnaser | i mean, it's even got it's own website -- https://ironicbaremetal.org | 15:16 |
| fungi | tripleo had its own non-openstack-branded website too | 15:17 |
| mnaser | im not knocking on ironic's technical usefulness, it is powerful, but it feels like instead of being the project that managed to get external traction so it helps bring up the rest of it's projects that helped it get to that place | 15:17 |
| mnaser | it's like: lol i made it, bye bye | 15:17 |
| knikolla[m] | i don't think that's the intention, as if you click anywhere you're still taken to openstack | 15:18 |
| mnaser | fungi: yeah, i agree with all of that, the view of things is different, i think the only thing we're lacking in openstack nowadays is just... completeness, a lot of small things are just "ah, it's just openstack!" but thats not good enough for people who don't understand open source as much | 15:18 |
| mnaser | knikolla[m]: well not just from the website, but the overall feeling of the project in it's release cycle changes, etc etc | 15:19 |
| JayF | See, I have a little bit of trouble with this. On one side, we have folks saying Ironic needs to make sure it "pays the price" for it's standalone needs. My response to that would be: we got a site by working with the foundation (ironicbaremetal.org), we have standalone test jobs that don't depend on devstack, and still have focused on making the fully integrated experience | 15:22 |
| JayF | better (Ironic sharding support which was landed this cycle to fix scaling issues that only happen when integrated with other openstack projects) | 15:22 |
| knikolla[m] | I see no fault in trying to cater to its userbase. And in no way I have seen that impact their being good citizens and contributing back in all possible ways. | 15:23 |
| dansmith | JayF: just to be clear, my "pay the price" (I think you're referring to) is purely about rendering the docs without the openstack words for publishing in a separate non-openstack location.. that's all I mean by it. | 15:23 |
| JayF | dansmith: I've heard similar sentiments in different contexts from people who aren't you though; so that was generic intentionally | 15:23 |
| dansmith | okay | 15:23 |
| dansmith | IMHO, we're trying to define guidelines here for consistent release notes and docs, and keeping the word openstack in those helps, so I don't want to *not* have those in there just because one project wants to have those docs elsewhere without relation to openstack | 15:24 |
| dansmith | and you mentioned that doing so was asking too much | 15:24 |
| JayF | We don't have those docs elsewhere; that's the whole point. We use the openstack site as the host for our release notes, and the more requirements we dictate about how those items are displayed, the more likely it becomes we'll have to duplicate that work to reduce confusion. | 15:25 |
| dansmith | yeah, that's the part I don't understand :) | 15:26 |
| JayF | I am going to purposefully timebox my engagement in these discussions today to ensure that other voices who are less active can chime in | 15:26 |
| JayF | and also to ensure I get actual work done today | 15:27 |
| JayF | including a demo of Ironic bifrost we're doing on my stream in ~30 minutes -- you know, the semi-weekly thing I do to help promote all of openstack with ironic and myself as a vehicle, so I'm going to prep for that and revisit this afternoon | 15:27 |
| mnaser | doesn't feel like much of a discussion to me | 15:30 |
| mnaser | ironic wants to focus on the standalone usecase, we've seen this time and time again | 15:31 |
| mnaser | json-rpc was implemented, but not into oslo messaging, in its own thing | 15:32 |
| mnaser | i dont know why this is the case, there's so much that ironic can do to empower the rest of the projects | 15:33 |
| mnaser | like hey did you know you can combine this thing with nova and get so much more other useful stuff | 15:33 |
| mnaser | being honest if there's an intention of ironic feeling like it could be the next cobbler/maas it's got a long ways to go and openstack 'branding' is IMHO the one of the least problems it can be at | 15:34 |
| fungi | but nova is only for virtual machines, and if i use those my network will be infested with uncool | 15:42 |
| mnaser | fungi: what will people do when they see mac address starting with fa:16:3e | 15:46 |
| noonedeadpunk | > i mean, it's even got it's own website -- https://ironicbaremetal.org - o_O TIL. | 15:55 |
| noonedeadpunk | I'm really not aware about history of Ironic trying to distance themselves from OpenStack brand, so all my assumptions were based that it's mostly wording we were discussing or what should we put more focus on - openstack coordinated release version or individual project version, but mentioning both anyway | 16:05 |
| noonedeadpunk | As with switching to numeric versions of coordinated releases, I can see how it might be more tricky for users to distinguish these 2 | 16:06 |
| noonedeadpunk | I personally don't have any hard opinion except I think that openstack release should be mentioned as well whenever applicable (for projects with independant release cycle it's not for instance). | 16:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | So in case ironic wants to fully avoid using openstack coordinated release in docs and renos (I'm still not sure it's true as of today and really an intention?) - maybe it makes sense to do independent release model then? | 16:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | I would hate if ironic would do that though... | 16:17 |
| gmann | so the discussion started with not to use *OpenStack* word in doc/release notes versioning even it is ok to use the openstack release version or name earlier. reason was *OpenStack* word confuse many standalone users of ironic which i did not understand why. | 18:07 |
| gmann | I am ok to use only 'project version' or 'project version+cordinated release version' but having issue with *OpenStack* word seems bigger issue than just documenting template or so. And that is what mnaser bringing here as concern which is not just limited to this change proposal but as overall | 18:09 |
| *** dasm is now known as dasm|off | 19:56 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!