On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 14:14 -0600, John Griffith wrote: > > Given that Cinder doesn't have anybody actively engaged in this other > than what's being proposed and worked on by Boris and folks, we'd be a > willing candidate for most of these changes, particularly if they're > accepted in Nova to begin with. > > > The question of having it in oslo-incubator or not, I think ultimately > that's likely to be the best thing, but as is evident by this thread > it seems there are a number of things that are going to have to be > sorted before that happens, and I'm not convinced that "move things to > OSLO first then fix" is the right answer. In my opinion things should > be pretty solid before they go into the OSLO repo, but that's just my > 2 cents. > > > AS is evident by the approval of the BP's in Cinder and the reviews on > the patches that have been submitted thus far Cinder is fine going the > direction/implementations that have been proposed by Boris. I would > like to see the debate around the archiving strategy and use of > alembic settled, but regardless on the Cinder side I would like to > move forward and make progress and as there's no other real effort to > move forward with improving the DB code in Cinder (which I think is > needed and very valuable) I'm fine with most of what's being proposed.
My conclusion from that (admittedly based on limited understanding) would be that everything Boris is proposing makes sense to copy from Nova to oslo-incubator so Cinder can re-use it, with the exception of the DB archiving strategy. i.e. we'd improve Nova's DB archiving strategy before having Cinder adopt it. Cheers, Mark. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
