harlowja
Joined 16 years ago
Joined 16 years ago
I pretty much agree with you, they should of provided 2 entrypoints IMHO, they can make there DSL and all that and make it (eventually) turing complete and at the same time they should just provide composeable objects in <some> language as well.
I've never quite figured out who the target audience is for these kind of DSL(s), is it people that can't program, or people that can't program well/at all (without adult supervision)?
https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/trunk/zookeeperReconfig.htm...
That's been out for a while now.
In terms of looking at OpenStack hard; and reaching decisions based on various <things> did you do any reach out to the OpenStack community to actually communicate the things you found or heard or concluded so that the group there (including myself) can actually work on improving itself (or perhaps some of the reasons you stated aren't even correct and the community could have helped you clarify those)? If not then it concerns me that you may have reached conclusions without actually talking with that community (but I don't want to jump to any conclusions without getting your thoughts/input).
So far from looking outwards in on the CNCF and seeing how it compares to the OpenStack community (which I am more involved with, including other small side-communities that I also work in) I've yet to understand what exactly the CNCF is targeting. It seems to be a body that is just adopting various projects that align to some mission (?); I have personally a hard time understanding the reasoning some of the projects have been adopted, maybe you can shed some light on that (what is true north for the CNCF, where is it written down, what is the TOC actually making adoption yes/no decisions on? what criteria? what is the technical taste you talk about, where is it written down?)
The nice thing about OpenStack is that they are writing most/all of this down and agreeing on those kinds of questions in public:
https://github.com/openstack/governance/tree/master/referenc... (github is a mirror, not the source of this repo, but easier for browsing purposes).
From an analysis of all commits in the k8s (main) repo this is the data I am getting about domains and the breakup of which users under which domains commit/author the most.
-----------------------
Top 20 author (domains)
-----------------------
google.com => 16825
gmail.com => 8220
redhat.com => 4051
fathomdb.com => 501
bedafamily.com => 420
coreos.com => 398
huawei.com => 352
raintown.org => 269
zte.com.cn => 183
mesosphere.io => 172
zju.edu.cn => 140
apache.org => 126
mirantis.com => 72
hotmail.co.uk => 67
amadeus.com => 67
163.com => 64
us.ibm.com => 64
tmrts.com => 44
box.com => 43
canonical.com => 42
--------------------------
Top 20 committer (domains)
--------------------------
google.com => 16655
gmail.com => 7130
redhat.com => 4065
fathomdb.com => 493
bedafamily.com => 419
coreos.com => 388
huawei.com => 348
raintown.org => 268
zte.com.cn => 180
mesosphere.io => 174
zju.edu.cn => 131
apache.org => 121
amadeus.com => 66
163.com => 65
us.ibm.com => 64
hotmail.co.uk => 63
mirantis.com => 63
ebay.com => 53
box.com => 43
tmrts.com => 42
Btw you (google?) should really invest in something like http://stackalytics.com/ if the community wants to have good transparency around this type of data.Crappy script to generate that data @ https://gist.github.com/harlowja/aca0b3c7d94c78014798fd9eb88...
I myself am a PTL (project technical lead) in one of the OpenStack projects and although I do understand where you are coming from I wonder what the gist of the experience you had was...
Care to share what experiences you have that made you think 'total dumpster fire'?
I know the software isn't perfect, but then what software is? Also I've seen that the OpenStack 'having a bad time experience' is as much of a cultural change as it is a software change; ie, OSS in general isn't a take and not contribute kind of thing, that's not how it really works/gets better.
I myself would feel more confidence in K8s if there was usage of K8s outside of GKE and the dogfood being created was eaten by the rest of google as well (or at least there was a publicized plan to make that happen), because otherwise it feels more like K8s is a experiment that google folks are waiting to see what happens before the rest of google adopts it.
Thoughts?
That's the problem I always had, you may get them into a trained state, but good luck figuring out any reason 'why' they ended up in that state (or even what that state really is).
https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/988
''Pip needs a dependency resolver''
Without such a thing you really don't quite have a way to ensure what you are requesting to be installed actually is a valid set of things.
Also sadly (and maybe I'm taking this wrong) but calling the holy land 'Google Infrastructure For Everyone Else' seems condescending ...
None of these are afaik things built in to raft but are add-ons that etcd has created (that may or may not even use raft).
It'd be great to instill confidence in these add-on features by having them peer-reviewed in a similar manner as raft is/was/has been.
Currently PTL of:
- https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo
Blah blah
- http://stackalytics.com/report/users/harlowja
- https://www.linkedin.com/in/jshharlow
Created/maintain/co-maintain/contributor to the following:
- https://anvil.readthedocs.org
- https://kazoo.readthedocs.org
- https://pypi.python.org/pypi/zake
- https://redis-py.readthedocs.org
- https://cloudinit.readthedocs.org
- https://fasteners.readthedocs.org
- https://pymemcache.readthedocs.org
- https://pypi.python.org/pypi/doc8
- https://pypi.python.org/pypi/retrying (dead)
- https://pypi.python.org/pypi/tenacity (alive)
- http://docs.openstack.org/developer/futurist/
- http://docs.openstack.org/developer/automaton/
- http://docs.openstack.org/developer/debtcollector/
- http://docs.openstack.org/developer/taskflow/
- http://docs.openstack.org/developer/tooz/
- (and more)