On Oct 11, 2013, at 19:04 , John Griffith <john.griff...@solidfire.com<mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Bob Ball <bob.b...@citrix.com<mailto:bob.b...@citrix.com>> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.com<mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>] > Sent: 11 October 2013 15:18 > To: > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status > > > As a practical example for Nova: in our case that would simply include the > following subtrees: "nova/virt/hyperv" and "nova/tests/virt/hyperv". > > If maintainers of a particular driver would prefer this sort of > autonomy, I'd rather look at creating new repositories. I'm completely > open to going that route on a per-driver basis. Thoughts? I think that all drivers that are officially supported must be treated in the same way. If we are going to split out drivers into a separate but still official repository then we should do so for all drivers. This would allow Nova core developers to focus on the architectural side rather than how each individual driver implements the API that is presented. Of course, with the current system it is much easier for a Nova core to identify and request a refactor or generalisation of code written in one or multiple drivers so they work for all of the drivers - we've had a few of those with XenAPI where code we have written has been pushed up into Nova core rather than the XenAPI tree. Perhaps one approach would be to re-use the incubation approach we have; if drivers want to have the fast-development cycles uncoupled from core reviewers then they can be moved into an incubation project. When there is a suitable level of integration (and automated testing to maintain it of course) then they can graduate. I imagine at that point there will be more development of new features which affect Nova in general (to expose each hypervisor's strengths), so there would be fewer cases of them being restricted just to the virt/* tree. Bob _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev I've thought about this in the past, but always come back to a couple of things. Being a community driven project, if a vendor doesn't want to participate in the project then why even pretend (ie having their own project/repo, reviewers etc). Just post your code up in your own github and let people that want to use it pull it down. If it's a vendor project, then that's fine; have it be a vendor project. There are quite a few reasons why putting this project soemwehere else wouldn't make sense: 1) It's not a vendor project, we're having contributions from community members belonging to other companies as well 2) Legitimation. Users want to know that this code is going to be there with or without us 3) Driver interface stability, as everybody is against a stable interface (even if de facto is perfectly stable) 4) it's not a vendor project, did I say it already? :-) Said that, we are constantly on the verge of starting pushing code to customers from a fork, but we are trying as hard as possible to avoid as it is definitely bad for the whole community. In my opinion pulling out and leaving things up to the vendors as is being described has significant negative impacts. Not the least of which is consistency in behaviors. On the Cinder side, the core team spends the bulk of their review time looking at things like consistent behaviors, missing features or paradigms that are introduced that "break" other drivers. For example looking at things like, are all the base features implemented, do they work the same way, are we all using the same vocabulary, will it work in an multi-backend environment. In addition, it's rare that a vendor implements a new feature in their driver that doesn't impact/touch the core code somewhere. In the moment in which you have a separate project for a driver, why should you care about if a driver breaks something or now? IMO It's a job for the driver mantainers and for it's CI. Having drivers be a part of the core project is very valuable in my opinion. It's also very important in my view that the core team for Nova actually has some idea and notion of what's being done by the drivers that it's supporting. Moving everybody further and further into additional private silos seems like a very bad direction to me, it makes things like knowledge transfer, documentation and worst of all bug triaging extremely difficult. That code is not going to disappear. Nova devs can anytime look into their "offspring" projects and contribute. I expect also driver devs to contribute to the Nova project as much as possible, as it is a common interest. I could go on and on here, but nobody likes to hear anybody go on a rant. I would just like to see if there are other alternatives to improving the situation than fragmenting the projects. John _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto: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
