Though Code reviews for vendor code takes more time, I feel it must go through Core reviews.
Since, Vendors might submit the code that is working fine within their third party CI environment but the Code review make it more efficient with respect to the coding standards followed in the community. Also, for all the vendor plugins/drivers the code reviews (+1s and +2s) give a feedback on the quality they must be in to be with Neutron. But one suggestion I want to put forward, when an -1 or -2 is given to the code, Reviewers might give a brief comment on why this was given, what might be preferred solution and Is there any reference implementation that can be considered for the code in review to move away from these errors. This can help the developers. -- Trinath Somanchi - B39208 trinath.soman...@freescale.com | extn: 4048 From: Amit Das [mailto:amit....@cloudbyte.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:01 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: tanny...@huawei.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver +1 I don't think it will be seen as punitive. Vendors can write their plugins or drivers when a deal occurs and they do not need to submit code to community and wait for approving. Being a third party vendor, i do not think this is punitive. OpenStack has already established through processes like cert tests via tempest, external CI, etc. However, waiting for months for reviews and some more days for next round of reviews is really disturbing. Vendor plugins can always always provide repository links, cert tests, external CI logs, pep8 logs, flake8 logs, code coverage stats etc. to confirm if they are abiding by the OpenStack processes. Regards, Amit CloudByte Inc.<http://www.cloudbyte.com/> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Germy Lure <germy.l...@gmail.com<mailto:germy.l...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Salvatore, Thanks for your hyperlink. It's really a monster thread that contains everyone's opinion. But it's useful to me. So, Before we focus on the Neutron core itself, we should firstly release a suite standardized APIs and a framework for vendors' codes. About this job, I think most of it is already OK. We have 20+ monolithic plugins following NB API and plugin framework. We need publish an API doc for internal interface(I prefer to call it SB API, stand on the Neutron core's point to consider, vendors' codes do not belong to core.) and other things unsuitable now. In my opinion, the Neutron core's main responsibility is data model and DB, schedule and dispatch, API and validation, framework and workflow. Some more comments inline. This is a very important discussion - very closely related to the one going on in this other thread http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/045768.html. Unfortunately it is also a discussion that tends to easily fragment and move in a thousand different directions. A few months ago I was too of the opinion that vendor plugins and drivers were the main reason of unnecessary load for the core team. I still think that they're an unnecessary heavy load, but I reckon the problem does not really lies with open source versus vendor code. It lies in matching people's competencies with subsystems and proper interface across them - as already pointed out in this thread. Yes, it's really important. I have some more comments inline, but unless growing another monster thread I'd rather start a different, cross-project discussion (which will hopefully not become just a cross-project monster thread!) Salvatore On 15 September 2014 08:29, Germy Lure <germy.l...@gmail.com<mailto:germy.l...@gmail.com>> wrote: Obviously, to a vendor's plugin/driver, the most important thing is API.Yes? NB API for a monolithic plugin or a service plugin and SB API for a service driver or agent, even MD. That's the basic. Now we have released a set of NB APIs with relative stability. The SB APIs' standardization are needed. The internal interface between the API and the plugins is standardized at the moment through use of classes like . A similar interface exists for ML2 drivers . To the monolithic plugins,  is useful. Vendors can implement those APIs and keep their codes locally. At the moment the dispatch of an API call to the plugin or from a plugin to a ML2 driver is purely a local call so these interfaces are working fairly well at the moment. I don't know yet however whether they will be sufficient in case plugins are split into different repos. ML2 Driver maintainers have however been warned in the past that the driver interface is to be considered internal and can be changed at any time. This does not apply to the plugin interface which has been conceived in this way to facilitate the development of out of tree plugins. Indeed, it's difficult to split MDs from ML2 plugin framework. I think it need some adaption. On the other hand, if by SB interfaces you are referring to the RPC interfaces for communicating between the servers and the various plugin, I would say that they should be considered internal at the moment.  https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/neutron_plugin_base_v2.py#L28  https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/plugins/ml2/driver_api.py Some comments inline. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Kevin Benton <blak...@gmail.com<mailto:blak...@gmail.com>> wrote: > So my suggestion is remove all vendors' plugins and drivers except opensource > as built-in. Yes, I think this is currently the view held by the PTL (Kyle) and some of the other cores so what you're suggesting will definitely come up at the summit. Good! The discussion however will not be that different from the one we're seeing on that huge thread on splitting out drivers, which has become in my opinion a frankenthread. Nevertheless, that thread points out that this is far from being merely a neutron topic (despite neutron being the project with the highest number of drivers and plugins). > Why do we need a different repo to store vendors' codes? That's not the > community business. > I think only a proper architecture and normal NB&SB API can bring "a clear > separation between plugins(or drivers) and core code", not a different repo. The problem is that that architecture won't stay stable if there is no shared community plugin depending on its stability. Let me ask you the inverse question. Why do you think the reference driver should stay in the core repo? A separate repo won't have an impact on what is packaged and released so it should have no impact on "user experience", "complete versions", "providing code examples", or "developing new features". In fact, it will likely help with the last two because it will provide a clear delineation between what a plugin is responsible for vs. what the core API is responsible for. And, because new cores can be added faster to the open source plugins repo due to a smaller code base to learn, it will help with developing new features by reducing reviewer load. OK, the key point is that vendors' code should be kept by themselves NOT by the community. But in the same time, the community should provide some open source reference as standard examples for those new cores and vendors. U are right, "A separate repo won't have an impact on what is packaged and released". The open source can stays in the core repo or a different one. In any case, we need them there for referencing and version releasing. Any vendor would not maintain the open source codes, the community only. I think that we are probably focusing too much on the "separate repo" issue, which is probably being seen as punitive for drivers and plugins. The separate repo would be just a possible tool for achieving the goal of reducing the review load imposed by drivers on the core team while keeping them part of the integrated release. I don't think it will be seen as punitive. Vendors can write their plugins or drivers when a deal occurs and they do not need to submit code to community and wait for approving. The community dose not need to waste energy to review those codes. If we must give a cause to keep vendors codes in the same or different repos, I think just installation-automatic. Similar to Linux kernel, user installs system on different hardware platform, and the system discovers the type of CPU, NIC, etc. and loads the right driver for that device. But OpenStack is not Linux, they are different. Regarding the "open source reference" solution... first there's no such thing like this. The fact that the upstream gate tests ML2 + OVS mech driver implicitly seem to make this the "reference", but this has not been sanctioned anywhere; second, the Neutron source tree does not just have a "reference plugin". It also has the DHCP agent, the OVS agent, the L3 agent, which implement also the management plane of a network virtualization system which uses OVS, iptables and other tools as its datapath. This is just for saying that when we talk about "splitting stuff from the main repo" there is more than just vendor plugin and drivers. It's more about giving control of subsystems to the people which are truly experts of that subsystem. I don't know whether splitting repositories would be the way to go. Splitting into different repos is helpful to standardizing APIs. We can also split those agents into separate repo as sub modules. This is, I think, the next stage after vendors' codes splitting. BR, Germy _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org<mailto: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