It feels like perhaps we need a more nuanced understanding of what we mean by our "use" of upstream components. If I am understanding some of the conversations correctly, Be might be more generally overall stable, but doesn't enable key capabilities (or has higher instability) around VPN and SFC advancement. B might be more stable around those features but has some instability around other features like HA, and that some scenarios might find one or the other more appropriate depending on their focus.
Is this an accurate characterization? If it is, it seems as though we're in an interesting position to understand at system level where specific strengths and weaknesses are in upstream releases, and that knowledge itself might be valuable for our ecosystem. With an overall mission of advancing and accelerating NFV, does this sort of knowledge capture possibly fit into our deliverables as much as release creation and upstream influence. And, yes, I realize our documentation should and likely does capture this sort of thing, but I'm wondering about elevating this sort of knowledge in terms of our value to the industry. This is merely speculative thinking meant to spur some conversation rather than an assertion, but I'm curious to hear thoughts from people. Heather On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Tim Rozet <tro...@redhat.com> wrote: > I don't see any issue here. Colorado 1.0 is set to use Beryllium, which > is already released. Even the scenarios that require Boron (FDS/SFC) do > not require ODL HA, and we already have Boron RC builds that work. ODL HA > is known to be buggy, so at least in Apex we don't enable it. > > Tim Rozet > Red Hat SDN Team > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David McBride" <dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org> > To: "Christopher Price" <chrispric...@gmail.com> > Cc: opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org, "TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV" < > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 1:24:13 PM > Subject: Re: [opnfv-project-leads] [opnfv-tech-discuss] > [release][hackfest] Release Milestone Review presentation > > Chris, > > As I understand it, some projects are planning to use Beryllium. Do we > know if the blockers effect both Beryllium and Boron, or is it just Boron? > If it's just Boron, then the projects that depend on Beryllium could > release at Colorado 1.0, while the projects that depend on Boron could > release at Colorado 2.0 or 3.0. > > In fact, I heard from Greg Elkinbard, yesterday, who said that scenarios > running on Fuel will be transitioning to Boron for Colorado 2.0. > > David > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:36 AM, Christopher Price < chrispric...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > Hard rules can be hard to find in an environment like ours. J > > I think we need in some cases to have “expectations” and allow the release > project to evaluate how those “expectations” are met. In other cases, the > “expectations” are pretty straightforward. > > > > We need to somehow articulate our developmental and testing needs while > making room for the fact that we are not in complete control of our > dependencies. > > > > > > For example, I was on the OpenDaylight TSC call yesterday and they are > considering a potential small delay in their release dates due to some > “blockers” on OpenFlowPlugin and NetVirt specifically for HA. These > blockers impact us directly. These issues may further result in a delay for > the ODL release version to be built and made available. > > > > We have 2 options to take here: > > 1) Take an older version of ODL, that we know has issues directly related > to our use of ODL. > (carry these blocking bugs through Colorado 1.0) > > 2) Iterate our version and take in the release that fixes the blocking > bugs. > > > > This relates very much to the fact that resolving issues in our own > troubleshooting is for the most part dependent on upstream communities > being able to resolve issues we identify. (or finding workarounds) > > > > In my mind it is very hard to find a “rule” we can apply here as each > situation is different. > > For this example I believe the best way to solve this would be to have a > phase at “code freeze” where we discuss issues and manage the patches that > we allow into the release. Maybe this is something to consider for D > release where David could arrange a small team that facilitates these > decisions after code freeze. > > > > > For now, David has only one recourse and that is to ask the TSC for a > decision on patches and version stepping. > > > > > I do hope however that we can work together for D to continue to drive for > a methodology that keeps us from a massive rush in the last months but > enables fast and efficient integration of new code… > > > > / Chris > > > > > From: < opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org > on behalf of Ulrich > Kleber < ulrich.kle...@huawei.com > > Date: Friday 2 September 2016 at 11:09 > To: David McBride < dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org >, opnfv-project-leads < > opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org >, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV < > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][hackfest] Release Milestone > Review presentation > > > > > > Hi David, > > I remember we had some issues understanding the meaning of the “feature > freeze” milestone. > > While reading again the lessons learned, I remembered that in former > projects I worked on, > > we called that milestone “code complete”. These two words for me quickly > associate that I should > > have now created my code, but would still be able to do some changes for > fixing bugs. > > Just an idea. Maybe give it a thought.... > > Cheers, > > Uli > > > > > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto: > opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org ] On Behalf Of David McBride > Sent: Wednesday, 24 August, 2016 20:55 > To: opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org ; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV > Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][hackfest] Release Milestone Review > presentation > > > > > > Thanks to those of you that attended my presentation at the OPNFV Q3 > Hackfest. The questions and feedback I received are welcome and very > helpful. > > > > > > I've posted the presentation on the wiki . Let me know if you have > additional questions or comments. > > > > > > David > > > > > > -- > > > David McBride > > > Release Manager, OPNFV > > > Mobile: +1.805.276.8018 > > > Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org > > > Skype: davidjmcbride1 > > > IRC: dmcbride > > > _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss > mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/ > mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > > > > -- > David McBride > Release Manager, OPNFV > Mobile: +1.805.276.8018 > Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org > Skype: davidjmcbride1 > IRC: dmcbride > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-project-leads mailing list > opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-project-leads > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-project-leads mailing list > opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-project-leads > -- *Heather Kirksey* Director, OPNFV Mobile: +1.512.917.7938 Email/Google Talk: hkirk...@linuxfoundation.org Skype: HeatherReneeKirksey IRC: HKirksey [image: OPNFV_RGB.png]
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
