On 29 July 2015 at 22:42, Anita Kuno <ante...@anteaya.info> wrote: > On 07/29/2015 02:37 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Since I was quoted, I would like to take the blame on behalf on the > Neutron > > core reviewer/drivers team for not providing the right guidance to > resolve > > the apparent conflict between the two proposals. > > > > As some reviewers mentioned, we should really strive to catch two birds > > with one stone, and ensure that, if at all possible, the same API can > > address both use cases presented. In this case, it sounds to me that the > > API proposed by the networking-sfc sub-project is more comprehensive, it > > has taken the steps to evolve independently from the Neutron core > platform, > > and it has been iterated on multiple times. Surely we can spin off (the > > forwarding engine) from the spin off (the SFC API), but that would feel > > like an overkill, especially when both have very little code to show for > > (and everyone knows that code wins in OpenStack). > > > > We should have provided Yuji Azama feedback a lot earlier in the process > > but we didn't. Again, blame me! > > > > I think that Sean raised a flag which should be seen as an acknowledgment > > of a need to reconcile the two efforts; let's move past the blame game > and > > the language barriers, and let's figure out how to address Yuji's need > > within the context of a single effort, without dismissing it. For this > > reason I am going to suggest we iterate within the networking-sfc > project, > > and block change 186663 <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186663/>. > Let's > > figure out how the model/API has to evolve to accommodate the proposed > used > > need. > > > > If you disagree, please raise your concern on the patch in review itself. > > > > Cheers, > > Armando > > Hi Armando, > > If my attempts to offer some feedback on communication came across as > blame than I failed in what I was trying to accomplish.
> My goal was and is to try to illustrate the point that competition and > collaboration are two separate directions. > > While some folks come from a competitive background, I hold the vision > of OpenStack as a collaborative experience. Some folks many need more > time than others to understand and digest the differences in behaviour > associated with the two styles of operating. > > I appreciate your email, Armando. At the very least it sets a good > example for others who many be new to collaboration to follow. > > As always, it is a pleasure to work with you Armax, > Anita. My point was simply to encourage the people involved in both efforts to take action after the discussion. The resolution of using one API over the other did not translate into a patch in any of our repos to capture the conclusion, at least not until now anyway, and without that, any back-and-forth is moot. That said, I think it's important that you keep us honest along our journey :) Thank you! > > > > > On 28 July 2015 at 15:01, Sean M. Collins <s...@coreitpro.com> wrote: > > > >> All, > >> > >> My suggestion was as follows: > >> > >>> <sc68cal> I'd say maybe an e-mail to the ML, with the results of this > >> meeting, and say that we want to try and converge where > >>> there is commonality > >> > >> I think there is overlap between the two APIs. Let's keep collaborating > >> on both the networking-sfc and packet forwarding APIs, to see where we > >> have commonality. I think Cathy's initial e-mail may have ruffled > >> feathers - and I'd like to smooth them out again. I think the statement > >> "we only need one API" is far too premature. > >> > >> Let's play nice with the other API proposals, yes? > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Sean M. Collins > >> > >> > __________________________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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