On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Shivanand Tendulker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank you. I too vote for 'Option 1'. > > Thanks and Regards > Shiv > > > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Villalovos, John L < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for sending this out. >> >> >> >> I would vote for Option 1. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* Pavlo Shchelokovskyy [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:16 AM >> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [ironic] inclusion of >> openstack/networking-generic-switch project under OpenStack baremetal >> program >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> as this topic it was recently brought up in ironic IRC meeting, I'd like >> to start a discussion on the subject. >> >> >> >> A quick recap - networking-generic-switch project (n-g-s) was born out of >> necessity to do two things: >> >> >> >> - test the "network isolation for baremetal nodes" (a.k.a. >> multi-tenancy) feature of ironic on upstream gates in virtualized >> environment and >> >> - do the same on cheap/simple/dumb hardware switches that are not >> supported by other various openstack/networking-* projects. >> >> >> >> Back when it was created AFAIR neutron governance (neutron stadium) was >> under some changes, so in the end n-g-s ended up not belonging to any >> official program. >> >> >> >> Over time n-g-s grew to be an essential part of ironic gate testing >> (similar to virtualbmc). What's more, we have reports that it is already >> being used in production. >> >> >> >> Currently the core reviewers team of n-g-s consists of 4 people (2 of >> those are currently core reviewers in ironic too), all of them are working >> for the same company (Mirantis). This poses some risk as companies and >> people come and go, plus since some voting ironic gate jobs depend on n-g-s >> stability, a more diverse group of core reviewers from baremetal program >> might be beneficial to be able to land patches in case of severe gate >> troubles. >> >> >> >> Currently I know of 3 proposed ways to change the current situation: >> >> >> >> 1) include n-g-s under ironic (OpenStack Baremetal program) governance, >> effectively including ironic-core team to the core team of n-g-s similar >> to how ironic-inspector currently governed (keeping an extended sub-core >> team). Reasoning for addition is the same as with virtualbmc/sushy >> projects, with the debatable difference that the actual scope of n-g-s is >> quite bigger and apparently includes production use-cases; >> >> >> >> 2) keep things as they are now, just add ironic-stable-maint team to the >> n-g-s core reviewers to decrease low diversity risks; >> >> >> >> 3) merge the code from n-g-s into networking-baremetal project which is >> already under ironic governance. >> >> >> >> As a core in n-g-s myself I'm happy with either 1) or 2), but not really >> fond of 3) as it kind of stretches the networking-baremetal scope too much >> IMHO. >> >> >> >> Eager to hear your comments and proposals. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy >> >> Senior Software Engineer >> >> Mirantis Inc >> >> www.mirantis.com >> >> I'm good with 1 or 2. Since we have two 1's and no nays (so far), let's go with 1 and move on :) Thanks for bringing this up! --ruby
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
