On 10/24/2014 03:29 PM, Mike Perez wrote:
> On 09:11 Thu 23 Oct     , Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> According to the use-cases explained in this thread (also in the emails
>> from John and Mathieu) this is something that'd be good having. I'm
>> looking forward to seeing the driver completed.
>>
>> As John mentioned in his email, we should probably sync again in K-1 to
>> see if there's been some progress on the bricks side and the other
>> things this driver depends on. If there hasn't, we should probably get
>> rid of it and add it back once it can actually be full-featured.
> 
> I'm unsure if Brick [1] will be completed in time. With that in mind, even if
> we were to deprecate the glance driver for Kilo, Brick will likely be done by
> then and we would just be removing the deprecation in L, assuming the driver 
> is
> completed in L. I think that would be confusing to users. It's unfortunate 
> this
> was merged in the current state, but I would just say leave things as is with
> intentions at the latest to have the driver completed in L. If we're afraid no
> one is going to complete the driver, deprecate it now.
> 
> [1] - https://github.com/hemna/cinder-brick

Thanks, Mike. This is great feedback.

I wonder how strong is the dependency between the cinder driver and
bricks. I mean, it'd be cool if we could complete the implementation in
a perhaps not so optimized way - on top of cinder's API? - and then use
the bricks library when it's done.

Thoughts on the above? It sounds hacky, I know. :)

Cheers,
Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to