> From the user perspective, splitting off the projects seems to be > focussing on the ease of commit compared to the final user > experience.
I think what you describe is specifically the desire that originally spawned the thread: making the merging of changes to the hyper-v driver faster by having them not reviewed by the rest of the Nova team. It seems to be what the hyper-v developers want, not necessarily what the Nova team as a whole wants. > An 'extras' project without *strong* testing co-ordination with > packagers such as SUSE and RedHat would end up with the consumers of > the product facing the integration problems rather than resolving > where they should be, within the OpenStack project itself. I don't think splitting out to -extras means that it loses strong testing coordination (note that strong testing coordination does not exist with the hyper-v driver at this point in time). Every patch to the -extras tree could still be unit (and soon, integration) tested against the current nova tree, using the proposed patch applied to the -extras tree. It just means that a change against nova wouldn't trigger the same, which is why the potential for "catch up" behavior would be required. > I am sympathetic to the 'extra' drivers problem such as Hyper-V and > powervm, but I do not feel the right solution is to split. > > Assuming there is a summit session on how to address this, I can > arrange a user representation in that session. Cool, I really think we're at the point where we know the advantages and disadvantages of the various options and further face-to-face discussion at the summit is what is going to move us to the next stage. --Dan _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev