On 09/04/2014 12:07 AM, Sumit Naiksatam 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 [1] 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 [2].
* 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!
[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/044283.html
[2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/043577.html
Hi all,
IIRC, Kevin was saying to me in IRC that GBP really needs to live
in-tree due to it needing access to various internal plugin points and
to be able to call across different plugin layers/drivers inside of Neutron.
If this is the case, how would the stackforge GBP project work if it
wasn't a fork of Neutron in its entirety?
Just curious,
-jay
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
