That is clearly a step in the right direction, and I have to commend the neutron team for really kicking things into high gear in going after some of these issues.
That said, we still have a long way to go. I think a very frank evaluation at icehouse-2 is going to be required to figure out whether nova-network either is indeed deprecated, or we remove the deprecation language from it and let more feature development happen back on the nova side. On 11/15/2013 02:36 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > fyi. gate-tempest-devstack-vm-neutron-large-ops is now a bit more > stable (compare [1] and [2]) with the Nova change [3]. Joe earlier > posted a call to arms [4] yesterday. > > [1] > http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJcIkZpbmlzaGVkOiBGQUlMVVJFXCIgQU5EIGJ1aWxkX25hbWU6XCJnYXRlLXRlbXBlc3QtZGV2c3RhY2stdm0tbmV1dHJvbi1sYXJnZS1vcHNcIiAiLCJmaWVsZHMiOltdLCJvZmZzZXQiOjAsInRpbWVmcmFtZSI6IjYwNDgwMCIsImdyYXBobW9kZSI6ImNvdW50IiwidGltZSI6eyJ1c2VyX2ludGVydmFsIjowfSwic3RhbXAiOjEzODQ1NDM3NDgzODcsIm1vZGUiOiIiLCJhbmFseXplX2ZpZWxkIjoiIn0= > [2] > http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJcIkZpbmlzaGVkOiBTVUNDRVNTXCIgQU5EIGJ1aWxkX25hbWU6XCJnYXRlLXRlbXBlc3QtZGV2c3RhY2stdm0tbmV1dHJvbi1sYXJnZS1vcHNcIiIsImZpZWxkcyI6W10sIm9mZnNldCI6MCwidGltZWZyYW1lIjoiNjA0ODAwIiwiZ3JhcGhtb2RlIjoiY291bnQiLCJ0aW1lIjp7InVzZXJfaW50ZXJ2YWwiOjB9LCJzdGFtcCI6MTM4NDU0MzgxOTg1MCwibW9kZSI6IiIsImFuYWx5emVfZmllbGQiOiIifQ== > [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56075/ > [4] http://markmail.org/message/lelobpwkle34sh4a > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Russell Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 11/15/2013 01:26 PM, Lorin Hochstein wrote: >>> Was the fate of nova-network discussed at the icehouse summit? >> >> Yes. [1][2] >> >>> In particular, has there been a decision made about whether it will >>> definitely be deprecated in some (as yet unspecified) future release, or >>> whether it will continue to be supported for the foreseeable future? >> >> We want to deprecate it. There are some things blocking moving forward >> with this. In short: >> >> 1) Feature parity (primarily something that satisfies performance and HA >> requirements addressed by nova-network in multi-host mode) >> >> 2) Testing and quality parity. The status of Neutron testing in the >> gate is far inferior to the testing done against nova-network. >> >> I'm personally more worried about #2 than #1 at this point. >> >> A major issue is that very few people actually stepped up and agreed to >> help with #2 at the summit [2]. Only one person signed up to work on >> tempest issues. Nobody signed up to help with grenade. If this doesn't >> happen, nova-network can't be deprecated, IMO. >> >> If significant progress isn't made ASAP this cycle, and ideally by >> mid-cycle so we can change directions if necessary, then we'll have to >> discuss what next step to take. That may include un-freezing >> nova-network so that various people holding on to enhancements to >> nova-network can start submitting them back. It's a last resort, but I >> consider it on the table. >> >> [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-neutron-nova-parity >> [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-summit-qa-neutron >> >> -- >> Russell Bryant >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > -- Sean Dague http://dague.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
