Re: salsa.debian.org maintenance (GitLab 11.1.4 upgrade, external storage migration)
On 08/19/2018 09:53 AM, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:55:19PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 08/18/2018 01:11 PM, Bastian Blank wrote:
>> First, there's dozens of OpenStack public cloud out there, so you're not
>> locked-in with a single operator.
>
> There exists thousand variants how to setup an OpenStack instance.
Really? It's been years I'm working on OpenStack, that's not what I saw.
Could you explain a bit more?
> Just leave out some specific service and it's not longer compatible with your
> project.
What kind of specific server do you have in mind here?
> So you not just need to find an OpenStack operator, you need
> to find an operator who provides the correct set of services you need.
The bare minimum one is to expect is: keystone, nova, glance, cinder,
neutron, heat. And generally, you also find swift. I don't see how a
public cloud provider would not provide at least these. Barbican is also
slowly becoming a standard too.
Now, if your provider also has trove, designate, magnum, manilla,
murano, neutron-{fwaas,lbaas,vpnaas} and so on, that's only a bonus, but
you often can deal without them.
>> Then there's not a single contributor
>> to the OpenStack source code, the contributors are quite diverse.
>
> A friend of mine called OpenStack a dysfunctional open source project.
> Especially the number of different people giving the shots and running
> in different directions does not help. (No project in OpenStack looks
> alike. Just look at all the different variants for how to maintain the
> database schema.)
This is somewhat exaggerated. Yes, because of historical reasons,
there's both Alembic and SQLAlchemy-migrate. Though oslo.db supports
both, and in practice, it's not a problem. Though in general, I do see
that most projects are disciplined and do work on the same direction. If
you consider the amount of dependencies (539 for the last Rocky
release), it's kind of nice that they are all worked out as a whole.
Lots of things have been standardized. The technical committee is also
there to steer in a single direction.
So, if that's your feeling, I'd suggest you look a 2nd time. I really
don't think OpenStack is a dysfunctional project.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: