On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Dean Troyer <dtro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo < > mangel...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Why would operators install from devstack? that’s not going to be the >> case. >> > > If they do they need more help than we can give... > > >> I believe we should have both LB & OVS well tested, if LB is a good >> option for >> some operators willing to migrate from nova, that’s great, let’s make >> sure LB >> is perfectly tested upstream. >> > > +1 > > >> But by doing such change we can’t let OVS code rot and we would be >> neglecting >> a big customer base which is now making use of the openvswitch mechanism. >> (may be I’m miss understanding the scope of the change). >> > > Changing DevStack's default doesn't remove anything OVS-related, nor does > it by itself remove any OVS jobs. It gives everyone who is happy with > nova-net (or more correctly doesn't think about it) a new default that > changes their experience the least for when nova-net disappears. > > I think you summed it up quite eloquently Dean. And this is why we'll do our best to revive the LB support in Neutron during Liberty. Thanks, Kyle > dt > > -- > > Dean Troyer > dtro...@gmail.com > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
