On 08/27/2014 04:28 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
What are you talking about? The only reply was from me clarifying that
one of the purposes of the incubator was for components of neutron that
are experimental but are intended to be merged.

Right. The special unicorns.

> In that case it might
not make sense to have a life cycle of their own in another repo

The main reasons these "experimental components" don't make sense to live in their own repo indefinitely are:

a) Neutron's design doesn't make it easy or straightforward to build/layer other things on top of it, or:

b) The experimental piece of code intends to replace whole-hog a large chunk of Neutron's existing codebase, or:

c) The experimental piece of code relies so heavily on inconsistent, unversioned internal interface and plugin calls that it cannot be designed externally due to the fragility of those interfaces

Fixing a) is the solution to these problems. An incubator area where "experimental components" can live will just continue to mask the true problem domain, which is that Neutron's design is cumbersome to build on top of, and its cross-component interfaces need to be versioned, made consistent, and cleaned up to use versioned data structures instead of passing random nested dicts of randomly-prefixed string key/values.

Frankly, we're going through a similar problem in Nova right now. There is a group of folks who believe that separating the nova-scheduler code into the Gantt project will magically make placement decision code and solver components *easier* to work on (because the pace of coding can be increased if there wasn't that pesky nova-core review process). But this is not correct, IMO. Separating out the scheduler into its own project before internal interfaces and data structures are cleaned up and versioned will just lead to greater technical debt and an increase in frustration on the part of Nova developers and scheduler developers alike.


On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com
<mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    On 08/26/2014 07:09 PM, James E. Blair wrote:


        After reading
        <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Incubator> I have
        some thoughts about the proposed workflow.

        We have quite a bit of experience and some good tools around
        code out of projects and into new projects.  But we don't
        generally do a
        lot of importing code into projects.  We've done this once, to my
        recollection, in a way that preserved history, and that was with the
        switch to keystone-lite.

        It wasn't easy; it's major git surgery and would require significant
        infra-team involvement any time we wanted to do it.

        However, reading the proposal, it occurred to me that it's
        pretty clear
        that we expect these tools to be able to operate outside of the
        project itself, to even be releasable on their own.  Why not
        just stick
        with that?  In other words, the goal of this process should be
        to create
        separate projects with their own development lifecycle that will
        continue indefinitely, rather than expecting the code itself to
        into the neutron repo.

        This has advantages in simplifying workflow and making it more
        consistent.  Plus it builds on known integration mechanisms like
        and python project versions.

        But more importantly, it helps scale the neutron project itself.  I
        think that a focused neutron core upon which projects like these can
        build on in a reliable fashion would be ideal.

    Despite replies to you saying that certain branches of Neutron
    development work are special unicorns, I wanted to say I *fully*
    support your above statement.


    OpenStack-dev mailing list

Kevin Benton

OpenStack-dev mailing list

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to