On Aug 19, 2014 10:45 AM, "Day, Phil" <philip....@hp.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nikola Đipanov [mailto:ndipa...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: 19 August 2014 17:50
> > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Scheduler split wrt Extensible
Resource
> > Tracking
> >
> > On 08/19/2014 06:39 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> > > On the other hand, ERT discussion is decoupled from the scheduler
> > > split discussion and will be delayed until Extensible Resource Tracker
> > > owner (Paul Murray) is back from vacation.
> > > In the mean time, we're considering new patches using ERT as
> > > non-acceptable, at least until a decision is made about ERT.
> > >
> >
> > Even though this was not officially agreed I think this is the least we
can do
> > under the circumstances.
> >
> > A reminder that a revert proposal is up for review still, and I
consider it fair
> > game to approve, although it would be great if we could hear from Paul
first:
> >
> >   https://review.openstack.org/115218
>
> Given the general consensus seemed to be to wait some before deciding
what to do here, isn't putting the revert patch up for approval a tad
premature ?
>
> The RT may be not able to cope with all of the new and more complex
resource types we're now trying to schedule, and so it's not surprising
that the ERT can't fix that.  It does however address some specific use
cases that the current RT can't cope with,  the spec had a pretty through
review under the new process, and was discussed during the last 2 design
summits.   It worries me that we're continually failing to make even small
and useful progress in this area.
>
> Sylvain's approach of leaving the ERT in place so it can be used for the
use cases it was designed for while holding back on doing some of the more
complex things than might need either further work in the ERT, or some more
fundamental work in the RT (which feels like as L or M timescales based on
current progress) seemed pretty pragmatic to me.

++, I really don't like the idea of rushing the revert of a feature that
went through significant design discussion especially when the author is
away and cannot defend it.

>
> Phil
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to