On 08/20/2014 04:48 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
On 08/20/2014 08:27 AM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Aug 19, 2014 10:45 AM, "Day, Phil" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Nikola Đipanov [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: 19 August 2014 17:50
To: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
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 ?
There was a recent discussion about reverting patches, and from that
(but not only) my understanding is that we should revert whenever in doubt.
Right.
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/042728.html
Putting the patch back in is easy, and if proven wrong I'd be the first
to +2 it. As scary as they sound - I don't think reverts are a big deal.
Neither do I. I think it's more appropriate to revert quickly and then
add it back after any discussions, per the above revert policy.
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.
Fair enough - I will WIP the revert until Phil is back. It's the right
thing to do seeing that he is away.
Well, it's as much (or more?) Paul Murray and Andrea Rosa :)
However - I don't agree with using the length of discussion around the
feature as a valid argument against reverting.
Neither do I.
I've supplied several technical arguments on the original thread to why
I think we should revert it, and would expect a discussion that either
refutes them, or provides alternative ways forward.
Saying 'but we talked about it at length' is the ultimate appeal to
imaginary authority and frankly not helping at all.
Agreed. Perhaps it's just my provocative nature, but I hear a lot of
"we've already decided/discussed this" talk especially around the
scheduler and RT stuff, and I don't think the argument holds much water.
We should all be willing to reconsider design decisions and discussions
when appropriate, and in the case of the RT, this discussion is timely
and appropriate due to the push to split the scheduler out of Nova
(prematurely IMO).
Best,
-jay
N.
Phil
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
