I can only see the use of a separate project for Group Policy as a tactical and temporary solution. In my opinion, it does not make sense to have the Group Policy as a separate project outside Neutron (unless the new project is aiming to replace Neutron and I do not think anybody is suggesting that). In this regard, Group Policy is not similar to Advanced Services such as FW and LB.
So, using StackForge to get things moving again is fine but let us keep in mind (and see if we can agree on) that we want to have the Group Policy abstractions as part of OpenStack Networking (when/if it proves to be a valuable extension to what we currently have). I do not want to see our decision to make things moving quickly right now prevent us from achieving that goal. That is why I think the other two approaches (from the little I know about the incubator option, and even littler I know about the feature branch option) may be better options in the long run. If I understand it correctly some members of the community are actively working on these options (that is, the incubator and the Neutron feature branch options) . In order to make a better judgement as to how to proceed, it would be very helpful if we get a bit more information on these two options and their status here on this mailing list. Mohammad From: Kevin Benton <blak...@gmail.com> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <email@example.com> Date: 09/05/2014 04:31 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Group-based Policy next steps Tl;dr - Neutron incubator is only a wiki page with many uncertainties. Use StackForge to make progress and re-evaluate when the incubator exists. I also agree that starting out in StackForge as a separate repo is a better first step. In addition to the uncertainty around packaging and other processes brought up by Mandeep, I really doubt the Neutron incubator is going to have the review velocity desired by the group policy contributors. I believe this will be the case based on the Neutron incubator patch approval policy in conjunction with the nature of the projects it will attract. Due to the requirement for two core +2's in the Neutron incubator, moving group policy there is hardly going to do anything to reduce the load on the Neutron cores who are in a similar overloaded position as the Nova cores. Consequently, I wouldn't be surprised if patches to the Neutron incubator receive even less core attention than the main repo simply because their location outside of openstack/neutron will be a good reason to treat them with a lower priority. If you combine that with the fact that the incubator is designed to house all of the proposed experimental features to Neutron, there will be a very high volume of patches constantly being proposed to add new features, make changes to features, and maybe even fix bugs in those features. This new demand for reviewers will not be met by the existing core reviewers because they will be busy with refactoring, fixing, and enhancing the core Neutron code. Even ignoring the review velocity issues, I see very little benefit to GBP starting inside of the Neutron incubator. It doesn't guarantee any packaging with Neutron and Neutron code cannot reference any incubator code. It's effectively a separate repo without the advantage of being able to commit code quickly. There is one potential downside to not immediately using the Neutron incubator. If the Neutron cores decide that all features must live in the incubator for at least 2 cycles regardless of quality or usage in deployments, starting outside in a StackForge project would delay the start of the timer until GBP makes it into the incubator. However, this can be considered once the incubator actually exists and starts accepting submissions. In summary, I think GBP should move to a StackForge project as soon as possible so development can progress. A transition to the Neutron incubator can be evaluated once it actually becomes something more than a wiki page. 1. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/044872.html -- Kevin Benton On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Mandeep Dhami <dh...@noironetworks.com> wrote: I agree. Also, as this does not preclude using the incubator when it is ready, this is a good way to start iterating on implementation in parallel with those issues being addressed by the community. In my view, the issues raised around the incubator were significant enough (around packaging, handling of updates needed for horizon/heat/celiometer, handling of multiple feature branches, etc) that we we will probably need a design session in paris before a consensus will emerge around a solution for the incubator structure/usage. And if you are following the thread on nova for 'Averting the Nova crisis ...', the final consensus might actually BE to use separate stackforge project for plugins anyways, and in that case we will have a head start ;-) Regards, Mandeep ----- On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Prasad Vellanki < prasad.vella...@oneconvergence.com> wrote: Sumit Thanks for initiating this and also good discussion today on the IRC. My thoughts are that it is important to make this available to potential users and customers as soon as possible so that we can get the necessary feedback. Considering that the neutron cores and community are battling nova parity and stability now, I would think it would be tough to get any time for incubator or neutron feature branch any time soon. I would think it would be better to move GBP into stackforge and then look at incubator or neutron feature branch when available. prasadv On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Sumit Naiksatam < sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, There's been a lot of lively discussion on GBP a few weeks back and we wanted to drive forward the discussion on this a bit more. As you might imagine, we're excited to move this forward so more people can try it out. Here are the options: * Neutron feature branch: This presumably allows the GBP feature to be developed independently, and will perhaps help in faster iterations. There does seem to be a significant packaging issue  with this approach that hasn’t been completely addressed. * Neutron-incubator: This allows a path to graduate into Neutron, and will be managed by the Neutron core team. That said, the proposal is under discussion and there are still some open questions . * Stackforge: This allows the GBP team to make rapid and iterative progress, while still leveraging the OpenStack infra. It also provides option of immediately exposing the existing implementation to early adopters. Each of the above options does not preclude moving to the other at a later time. Which option do people think is more preferable? (We could also discuss this in the weekly GBP IRC meeting on Thursday: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron_Group_Policy) Thanks!  http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/044283.html  http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/043577.html _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ 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 -- Kevin Benton_______________________________________________ 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