On Oct 13, 2013, at 14:54 , Christopher Yeoh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:30:30 -0700 > Dan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> If the idea is to gate with nova-extra-drivers this could lead to a >>> rather painful process to change the virt driver API. When all the >>> drivers are in the same tree all of them can be updated at the same >>> time as the infrastructure. >> >> Right, and I think if we split those drivers out, then we do *not* >> gate on them for the main tree. It's asymmetric, which means >> potentially more trouble for the maintainers of the extra drivers. >> However, as has been said, we *want* the drivers in the tree as we >> have them now. Being moved out would be something the owners of a >> driver would choose in order to achieve a faster pace of development, >> with the consequence of having to place catch-up if and when we >> change the driver API. > > If that's what the owners of the driver want to do then I've no problem > with supporting that approach. But I very much think that we should aim > to have drivers integrated into the Nova tree as they mature so we can > gate on them. Or if not in the tree then at least have a system that > supports developing in a way that makes gating on them possible without > the downside pains of not being able to change internal APIs easily. > For what the driver's interface stability is concerned, I wouldn't see it as a major issue as long as Nova and driver devs coordinate the effort. Beside that, having a versioned stable driver interface wouldn't be IMHO such a hassle, but as I wrote, this is our very last problem. > Chris. > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
