On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:28:16AM +0200, Sylvain Bauza wrote: > Le 04/07/2014 10:41, Daniel P. Berrange a écrit : > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 03:30:06PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > >> On 07/03/2014 01:53 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: > >>> That doesn't mean Gantt will move forward and leave all missing features > >>> out of it, we will be dedicated to feature-parity as top priority but > >>> that implies that the first releases of Gantt will be experimental and > >>> considered for testing purposes only. > >> I don't think this sounds like the best approach. It sounds like effort > >> will go into maintaining two schedulers instead of continuing to focus > >> effort on the refactoring necessary to decouple the scheduler from Nova. > >> It's heading straight for a "nova-network and Neutron" scenario, where > >> we're maintaining both for much longer than we want to. > > Yeah, that's my immediate reaction too. I know it sounds like the Gantt > > team are aiming todo the right thing by saying "feature-parity as the > > top priority" but I'm concerned that this won't work out that way in > > practice. > > > >> I strongly prefer not starting a split until it's clear that the switch > >> to the new scheduler can be done as quickly as possible. That means > >> that we should be able to start a deprecation and removal timer on > >> nova-scheduler. Proceeding with a split now will only make it take even > >> longer to get there, IMO. > >> > >> This was the primary reason the last gantt split was scraped. I don't > >> understand why we'd go at it again without finishing the job first. > > Since Gantt is there primarily to serve Nova's needs, I don't see why > > we need to rush into a split that won't actually be capable of serving > > Nova needs, rather than waiting until the prerequisite work is ready. > > Thanks Dan and Russell for the feedback. The main concern about the > scheduler split is when > it would be done, if Juno or later. The current changes I raised are > waiting to be validated, and the main blueprint (isolate-scheduler-db) > is not yet validated before July 10th (Spec Freeze) so there is risk > that the efforts would be done on the K release (unless we get an > exception here)
Where is the sense of urgency for spltting scheduler in Juno coming from ? I worry that even if you get all the dependent bits done and we manage to split Gantt out, it is going to end up being a rather last minute split. It feels to me that any time we intend to split code out into a separate project, it is the kind of surgery that should be done right at the start of a dev cycle. ie before a first milestone release. Any code split has the potential for disrupting dev, build & test procedures, so not something appealing to do near the end of a dev cycle when we're under alot of pressure to review & merge stuff to get out the final stable release. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
