Two more points as I think about this more:

1.) How are we planning to ship a working Beryllium-SR1 if projects are
using the stable/beryllium branch to migrate to the -li plugin from now
until Beryllium-SR2? Won't that result in an unstable state when we need to
ship Beryllium-SR1?

2.) If we do ship this as part of an SR, we need to provide complete API
compatibility. This includes the corner cases like port status
notifications and the like, which, if I remember correctly, changed between
the older and newer implementations.

--Colin


On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Colin Dixon <[email protected]> wrote:

> My only concern with this plan is that we've told users that the can
> expect relative stability from upgrades between SRs and while we may test
> projects' functionality internally fairly well to ensure no regressions, my
> worry is that there may be a number of external consumers of the OpenFlow
> plugin that use it in ways we don't.
>
> The result is that we may introduce regressions in an SR that could damage
> our reputation with users for some time to come.
>
> I don't think it necessarily prohibits doing this, but it's certainly
> something to carefully consider.
>
> --Colin
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> In the OpenFlow Plugin meeting yesterday we talked about the migration to
>> the Lithium design for all the projects consuming OpenFlow Plugin and we
>> decided the following migration path makes the most sense:
>>
>>
>>    1. The SR1 is due March 17 (cutoff March 13) & we have some issues
>>    (mentioned later in the email) we should fix before migration. Hence these
>>    should be fixed in SR1. These issues will be marked as blockers for easier
>>    tracking.
>>    2. *ACTION for dependent projects: *The dependent projects should
>>    start work on migration *immediately (now)* and finish by SR2 (April
>>    28 - cutoff April 24). This will also give OF Plugin a chance to fix new
>>    issues identified by the dependent projects.
>>    3. The plugin migration will first be started in the master and then
>>    cherry picked to Beryllium.
>>
>> Other important planning points to note
>>
>>    1. To help find issues faster (for projects & for OpenFlow plugin) -
>>    Anil will have an unmerged patch for master (& perhaps stable/beryllium)
>>    which will flip the default plugin design to the Lithium design.
>>    Using the patch the projects can locally build openflowplugin master
>>    branch, that way we don't have to merge it in master. We will not merge 
>> the
>>    patch right away - as merging the patch can block the projects' ongoing
>>    development work, if things started breaking from openflowplugin side.
>>    - When fixing issues for the Lithium design with this unmerged patch
>>       - care must be taken not to break the Helium design otherwise the 
>> master
>>       branch may be broken.
>>       2. Luis will create a distribution based on Anil's patch and then
>>    we can run the integration tests on it. ​
>>
>>    3. According to Hideyuki - VTN has already unmerged patch (
>>    https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/35118/) for the migration.
>>    However they have run into a performance issue when using the RPCs.
>>    4. The VTN patch will be useful for Luis' distribution with the
>>    default as Lithium.
>>
>>
>> Issues that need to be fixed:
>>
>> 1) OF1.0 issue:
>>
>>
>> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/openflowplugin/job/openflowplugin-csit-1node-flow-services-lithium-redesign-only-beryllium/
>> https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5328
>>
>> 2) Cluster issues:
>>
>>
>> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/openflowplugin/job/openflowplugin-csit-3node-clustering-only-beryllium/
>> https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5388
>>
>>
>> 3) Stability issues:
>>
>>
>> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/openflowplugin/job/openflowplugin-csit-1node-periodic-longevity-lithium-redesign-only-beryllium/
>> https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5271
>> https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4925
>>
>> We will have a session in the DDF (
>> https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Events:Boron_Dev_Forum#OpenFlow_Plugin_.26_OpenFlow_Plugin_Dependent_Projects_Planning)
>> regarding this where we can discuss more (in addition to any email).
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Abhijit
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> release mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/release
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
openflowplugin-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev

Reply via email to