<andrew.wilkinson@...> wrote: I tend to agree. The term "blueprint" in Akraino is already confusing enough, even without using it also in the OpenStack Blueprint kind of sense ;)

<agrimberg@...> wrote: Understood, np. Sorry for the noise.

<jserafin@...> wrote: Would it make sense to rename this to "announce@..." then?

So selectively backporting patches from upstream's master into upstream's stable branch. That's something we might want to do in the upstream branch, too, but I can see the need for exceptions to that

Again: Being an integration project doesn't preclude doing development at all! It's simply a question of clarifying the primary mission. If people feel Akraino's main mission is development like in Op

The current code is only the seed code that AT&T generously donated to kick-start the project. Obviously there are pieces missing and maybe pieces we may not need / want to do differently later. I wou

It is confusing, yes. And it confirms that we've not made explicit whether Akraino is mainly an integration, development, or specification/standardization project. I hope we can agree that Akraino is