Christopher Yeoh wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com > <mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> John and I discussed a third possibility: >> >> nova-network v3 should be an extension, so the idea was to: Make >> nova-network API a subset of neturon (instead of them adopting our API >> we adopt theirs). And we could release v3 without nova network in >> Icehouse and add the nova-network extension in Juno. > > This would actually be my preferred approach if we can get consensus > around this. It takes a lot of pressure off this late in the cycle and > there's less risk around having to live with a nova-network API in V3 > that still has some rough edges around it. I imagine it will be quite a > while before we can deprecate the V2 API so IMO going one cycle without > nova-network support is not a big thing.
So user story would be, in icehouse release (nothing deprecated yet): v2 + nova-net: supported v2 + neutron: supported v3 + nova-net: n/a v3 + neutron: supported And for juno: v2 + nova-net: works, v2 could be deprecated v2 + neutron: works, v2 could be deprecated v3 + nova-net: works through extension, nova-net could be deprecated v3 + neutron: supported (encouraged future-proof combo) That doesn't sound too bad to me. Lets us finalize v3 core in icehouse and keeps a lot of simplification / deprecation options open for Juno, depending on how the nova-net vs. neutron story pans out then. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev