> On 12.10.2013, at 20:04, "Tim Bell" <tim.b...@cern.ch> wrote: > > > From the user perspective, splitting off the projects seems to be focussing > on the ease of commit compared to the final user experience. An 'extras' > project without *strong* testing co-ordination with packagers such as SUSE > and RedHat would end up with the consumers of the product facing the > integration problems rather than resolving where they should be, within the > OpenStack project itself. > > I am sympathetic to the 'extra' drivers problem such as Hyper-V and powervm, > but I do not feel the right solution is to split. > > As CERN uses the Hyper-V driver (we have a dual KVM/Hyper-V approach), we > want that this configuration is certified before it reaches us. > I don't see your point here. From any practical perspective, most of the Nova core review work in the sub-project areas consists in formal validation of the patches (beyond the basic pep8 / pylinting done by Jenkins) or unit test requests while 99% of the authoritative work on the patches is done by the "de-facto" sub-project maintainers, simply because those are the people knowing the domain. This wouldn't change with a separate project. It would actually improve.
Informal "Certification", to call it this way, is eventually coming from the users (including CERN of course), not from the reviewers: in the end you (the users) are the ones using this stuff in production environments and you are filing bugs and asking for new features. On the other side, if by "extra" you mean a repo outside of OpenStack (the vendor repo suggested in previous replies in this thread), I totally agree, as it would move the project outside of the focus of the largest part of the community in most cases. > Assuming there is a summit session on how to address this, I can arrange a > user representation in that session. > > Tim > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dan Smith [mailto:d...@danplanet.com] >> Sent: 12 October 2013 18:31 >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status >> >>> If the idea is to gate with nova-extra-drivers this could lead to a >>> rather painful process to change the virt driver API. When all the >>> drivers are in the same tree all of them can be updated at the same >>> time as the infrastructure. >> >> Right, and I think if we split those drivers out, then we do *not* gate on >> them for the main tree. It's asymmetric, which means potentially >> more trouble for the maintainers of the extra drivers. However, as has been >> said, we *want* the drivers in the tree as we have them now. >> Being moved out would be something the owners of a driver would choose in >> order to achieve a faster pace of development, with the >> consequence of having to place catch-up if and when we change the driver API. >> >> Like I said, I'll be glad to submit patches to the extra tree in unison with >> patches to the main tree to make some of the virt API changes >> that will be coming soon, which should minimize the troubles. >> >> I believe Alex has already said that he'd prefer the occasional catch-up >> activities over what he's currently experiencing. >> >> --Dan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
