On 11/22/2013 11:17 AM, Jonathan Proulx wrote: > To add to the screams of others removing features from nova-network to > achieve parity with neutron is a non starter, and it rather scares me > to hear it suggested.
-1 from me too, so everyone can take a deep breath on this. :-) > Providing feature parity and easy cut over *should have been* priority > 1 when quantum split out of nova as it was for cinder (which was a > delightful and completely unnoticable transition) +1 I think the experience with Neutron provides us some very good insight for future project splits/replacements. We're working on establishing more clear requirements for project incubation and graduation in the TC. One note I put down was that we should require that projects stay completely focused on being able to deprecate their replacement before adding *anything* else whenever possible. A good example is the current discussion around a new scheduling service. There have been lots of big ideas around this. Robert Collins just started a thread about a proposal to start this project but with a very strict scope of being able to replace nova-scheduler, and *nothing* more until that's completely done. I like that approach quite a bit. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
