Hi, I'd like to point that ironic-lib is already used outside of Ironic tree - for the third-party deployment drivers, e.g this fuel-agent based one [0].
[0] https://github.com/openstack/fuel-agent/blob/master/contrib/ironic/ironic-fa-deploy/ironic_fa_deploy/modules/fuel_agent.py#L30 Best regards, Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy Senior Software Engineer Mirantis Inc www.mirantis.com On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Lucas Alvares Gomes <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Sam Betts (sambetts) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I personally disagree with saying that if we wanted it make it usable by > > projects other than ones in the Ironic umbrella it should go into oslo. I > > think that non-ironic projects directly related to Ironic such as out of > > tree drivers etc, should be able to utilise the code placed into > > ironic-lib. > > > > Neutron are doing a very similar thing for all their drivers/extensions > > they have broken out over the last 2 cycles, > > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/neutron-specs/specs/liberty/neutron-li > > b.html. > > > > Making ironic-lib available to out of tree drivers etc also puts us into > a > > good position to begin the work to stabilise things like the driver API. > > Neutron is making the rule that out of tree drivers shouldn¹t > > inherit/import anything from the neutron core code base, only > neutron-lib, > > they are doing this to provide a stable interface that shouldn¹t be > broken > > by changes to neutron core. I think we could do the same, with in-tree > > drivers dog-fooding the driver api we provide in ironic-lib. > > > > I'm personally fine with that goal, if we as a community agree that in > the soon future of ironic-lib should target a broader audience. The > thing is that I don't think the lib was conceived with that in mind, > we started small (baby-steps) sharing partitioning code from Ironic > and Ironic-Python-Agent, now that it's done we can start working > towards making it a more generic library. > > What I don't think we should do is say that the library's _right now_ > ready for it, the interfaces we have at the moment should not be > considered stable, Ironic is very opinionated in many aspects > (specially when partitioning the disk), there's no documentation, no > release notes, etc... > > So, if agreed, let's do it, but let's do it properly. > > Cheers, > Lucas > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
