On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Matt Riedemann <mriede...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/2017 11:47 AM, John Griffith wrote: > >> >> It seems like just moving Nova to V3 in Pike would alleviate quite a few >> snarls here. The fact that V3.0 is just pointing back to V2 for Cinder >> calls anyway I'm uncertain there's a huge downside to this. Nova + >> Cinder V2 coverage is only an entry point issue IIUC (V3.0 points to >> Cinder V2 API server calls anyway based on what I was looking at). So >> it's more an issue of cinderclient and what it's set up at no? >> Honestly, this is another one of those things we probably need to unwind >> together at PTG. The V3 Cinder thing has proven to be quite thorny. >> >> >> > Scott's nova patch to support cinder v3 is dependent on a > python-cinderclient change for version discovery for min/max versions in > the v3 API. Once that's released we just bump the minimum required > cinderclient in global-requirements for pike and we should be good to go > there. > > But overall yeah I like the idea of just defaulting to cinderv3 in Pike, > as long as we can still get cinderv2 coverage in CI in master, which I > think we can do via grenade jobs. +1 > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Matt Riedemann > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev