On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:16:02PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > Sorry, I wasn't a part of the sessions in Austin on the topic of long > terms support of Cinder drivers. There's a lot going on during the summits > these days.
For the record the session in Austin, that I think Matt was referencing, were about stable life-cycles. not cinder specific. > Yeah, ok... I do see your point here, and as I mentioned I have had this > conversation with you and others over he years and I don't disagree. I also > don't have the ability to "force" > said parties to do things differently. So when I try and help customers > that are having issues my only recourse is an out of tree patch, which then > when said distro notices or finds out they don't want to support the > customer any longer based on the code no longer being "their blessed > code". The fact is that the distros hold the power in these situations, if > they happen to own the OS release and the storage then it works out great > for them, not so much for anybody else. Right we can't 'force' the distros to participate (if we could we wouldn't be having this discussion). The community has a process and all we can do is encourage distros and the like to participate in that process as it really is best for them, and us. > So is the consensus here that the only viable solution is for people to > invest in keeping the stable branches in general supported longer? How > does that work for projects that are interested and have people willing to > do the work vs projects that don't have the people willing to do the work? > In other words, Cinder has a somewhat unique problem that Nova, Glance and > Keystone don't have. So for Cinder to try and follow the policies, > processes and philosophies you outlined does that mean that as a project > Cinder has to try and bend the will of "ALL" of the projects to make this > happen? Doesn't seem very realistic to me. So the 'Cinder' team wont need to do all the will bending, that's for the Stable team to do with the support of *everyone* that cares about the outcome. That probably doens't fill you with hope, but that is the reality. > Just one last point and I'll move on from the topic. I'm not sure where > this illusion that we're testing all the drivers so well is coming from. > Sure, we require the steps and facade of 3'rd party CI, but dig a bit > deeper and you soon find that we're not really testing as much as some > might think here. That's probbaly true but if we created a 'mitaka-drivers' branch of cinder the gate CI would rapidly degernate to a noop any unit/functional tests would be *entirely* 3rd party. Yours Tony.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
