I am not for this if Octavia is merged into the incubator when LBaaS V2 is, assuming LBaaS V2 will be merged into it before the summit. I'd rather Octavia get merged into whatever repository it is destined to whenever it is much more mature. If Octavia is merged into the incubator too soon, I think it's velocity will be much less than if it were independent at first.
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 13:45 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote: > Hi Kyle, > > > IMO, that depends entirely on how the incubator project is run. For > now, I'm in favor of remaining separate and letting someone else be > the guinea pig. :/ I think we'll (all) be more productive this way. > > > Also keep in mind that the LBaaS v2 code is mostly there (just waiting > on reviews), so it's probably going to be ready for neutron-incubator > incubation well before Octavia is ready for anything like that. > > > Stephen > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Kyle Mestery <mest...@mestery.com> > wrote: > > > To me what makes sense here is that we merge the Octavia code > into the > neutron-incubator when the LBaaS V2 code is merged there. If > the end > goal is to spin the LBaaS V2 stuff out into a separate git > repository > and project (under the networking umbrella), this would allow > for the > Octavia driver to be developed alongside the V2 API code, and > in fact > help satisfy one of the requirements around Neutron incubation > graduation: Having a functional driver. And it also allows for > the > driver to continue to live on next to the API. > > What do people think about this? > > Thanks, > Kyle > > > > > > -- > Stephen Balukoff > Blue Box Group, LLC > (800)613-4305 x807 > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackemail@example.com > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev