Thank you. I too vote for 'Option 1'. Thanks and Regards Shiv
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Villalovos, John L < john.l.villalo...@intel.com> wrote: > Thanks for sending this out. > > > > I would vote for Option 1. > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > > *From:* Pavlo Shchelokovskyy [mailto:pshchelokovs...@mirantis.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:16 AM > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [ironic] inclusion of > openstack/networking-generic-switch project under OpenStack baremetal > program > > > > Hi all, > > > > as this topic it was recently brought up in ironic IRC meeting, I'd like > to start a discussion on the subject. > > > > A quick recap - networking-generic-switch project (n-g-s) was born out of > necessity to do two things: > > > > - test the "network isolation for baremetal nodes" (a.k.a. multi-tenancy) > feature of ironic on upstream gates in virtualized environment and > > - do the same on cheap/simple/dumb hardware switches that are not > supported by other various openstack/networking-* projects. > > > > Back when it was created AFAIR neutron governance (neutron stadium) was > under some changes, so in the end n-g-s ended up not belonging to any > official program. > > > > Over time n-g-s grew to be an essential part of ironic gate testing > (similar to virtualbmc). What's more, we have reports that it is already > being used in production. > > > > Currently the core reviewers team of n-g-s consists of 4 people (2 of > those are currently core reviewers in ironic too), all of them are working > for the same company (Mirantis). This poses some risk as companies and > people come and go, plus since some voting ironic gate jobs depend on n-g-s > stability, a more diverse group of core reviewers from baremetal program > might be beneficial to be able to land patches in case of severe gate > troubles. > > > > Currently I know of 3 proposed ways to change the current situation: > > > > 1) include n-g-s under ironic (OpenStack Baremetal program) governance, > effectively including ironic-core team to the core team of n-g-s similar > to how ironic-inspector currently governed (keeping an extended sub-core > team). Reasoning for addition is the same as with virtualbmc/sushy > projects, with the debatable difference that the actual scope of n-g-s is > quite bigger and apparently includes production use-cases; > > > > 2) keep things as they are now, just add ironic-stable-maint team to the > n-g-s core reviewers to decrease low diversity risks; > > > > 3) merge the code from n-g-s into networking-baremetal project which is > already under ironic governance. > > > > As a core in n-g-s myself I'm happy with either 1) or 2), but not really > fond of 3) as it kind of stretches the networking-baremetal scope too much > IMHO. > > > > Eager to hear your comments and proposals. > > > > Cheers, > > -- > > Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy > > Senior Software Engineer > > Mirantis Inc > > www.mirantis.com > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
