[openstack-dev] Neutron sub-project release association with Liberty?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Hi,

Once the Neutron's sub-project is released to pyPI, where does it show that
this sub-project release is associated with Liberty release of Openstack?..
I tried to see it in the Liberty Release notes, but it doesn't have any
info about the supported/released vendor plug-ins/drivers.

I see the plug-in is listed here in the official sub-project list, but
again it is not specific to a particular release.
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/neutron/devref/sub_projects.html



In the following link, i see but only some vendor plug-ins, not all is
listed here!... why only some of vendor drivers are shipped with Openstack
and not all?..
https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/drivers/


So what is the criteria to get a vendor plug-in listed on this page? or
where can i see the supported vendor plugins/drivers for a given Openstack
release (specfically Liberty) ??

Any info/link on this would be much helpful and appreciated?...

Thanks,
Vad
--
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Release of a neutron sub-project

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Kyle,

We referenced arista's setup/config files when we setup the pypi for
our plugin. So if it is ok for Arista, then it would be ok for
ale-omniswitch too, i believe. You said Arista was ok when you did in
google, instead of pypi search, in another email. So can you pls.
check again ale-omniswitch as well and confirm.

If still it has an issue, can you pls. throw me some pointers on where
to enable the openstackci owener permission?..

Thanks,Vad--

The following pypi registrations did not follow directions to enable
openstackci has "Owner" permissions, which allow for the publishing of

packages to pypi:

networking-ale-omniswitch
networking-arista


On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Kyle Mestery  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Kyle Mestery  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Vadivel Poonathan <
>> vadivel.openst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As per the Sub-Project Release process - i would like to tag and release
>>> the following sub-project as part of upcoming Liberty release.
>>> The process says talk to one of the member of 'neutron-release' group. I
>>> couldn’t find a group mail-id for this group. Hence I am sending this email
>>> to the dev list.
>>>
>>> I just have removed the version from setup.cfg and got the patch merged,
>>> as specified in the release process. Can someone from the neutron-release
>>> group makes this sub-project release.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Vlad, I'll do this tomorrow. Find me on IRC (mestery) and ping me there
>> so I can get your IRC NIC in case I have questions.
>>
>>
> It turns out that the networking-ale-omniswitch pypi setup isn't correct,
> see [1] for more info and how to correct. This turned out to be ok, because
> it's forced me to re-examine the other networking sub-projects and their
> pypi setup to ensure consistency, which the thread found here [1] will
> resolve.
>
> Once you resolve this ping me on IRC and I'll release this for you.
>
> Thanks!
> Kyle
>
> [1]
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-September/075880.html
>
>
>> Thanks!
>> Kyle
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ALE Omniswitch
>>> Git: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/networking-ale-omniswitch
>>> Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/networking-ale-omniswitch
>>> Pypi: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/networking-ale-omniswitch
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vad
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> __
>>> 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-dev] [Neutron] Release of a neutron sub-project

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Hi,

As per the Sub-Project Release process - i would like to tag and release
the following sub-project as part of upcoming Liberty release.
The process says talk to one of the member of 'neutron-release' group. I
couldn’t find a group mail-id for this group. Hence I am sending this email
to the dev list.

I just have removed the version from setup.cfg and got the patch merged, as
specified in the release process. Can someone from the neutron-release
group makes this sub-project release.


ALE Omniswitch
Git: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/networking-ale-omniswitch
Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/networking-ale-omniswitch
Pypi: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/networking-ale-omniswitch

Thanks,
Vad
--
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] adding new vendor driver to upstream

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Hi Armando,

Thanks for the pointer. I will go thru the same and get back to you/group,
in case of any clarification.

Here is the outdated wiki pages that i came across... these may have to be
updated/cleaned-up to reflect the recent changes about
development/contribution of new vendor plugins/drivers...
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron_Plugins_and_Drivers
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NeutronDevelopment
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron

Thanks,
Vad
--


On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Armando M.  wrote:

>
> On 10 July 2015 at 16:01, Vadivel Poonathan 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a Neutron plugin (actually a mechanism_driver under ML2) developed
>> for Alcatel-Lucent Omniswitches and is currently being used. But it is not
>> part of Neutron upstream, nor listed in the docs/wiki section. I tried to
>> make it part of Kilo release, but that was when the decomposition proposal
>> was going on. Infact i reviewed the blueprint spec and provided some
>> comments too. Since i had to decompose my driver as per the Kilo's
>> decomposition spec, i deferred it to make it as part of Liberty release.
>>
>> Now going thru some wiki pages, blueprint specs etc, i 'm not clear on
>> the procedures/criteria to make my driver integrated with upstream
>> Neutron.  Its all scattered and some says "all vendor code" is moved
>> out-of-tree in Liberty, some says only vendor library is moved, some says
>> third-party CI system is no longer required, some says it is one of the key
>> requirement.
>>
>
> This is the most up-to-date place to look for to get you started:
>
>
> https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/doc/source/devref/contribute.rst
>
> There is no wiki afaik, and only one spec that targeted the Kilo release,
> so I I'd be curious to know what you mean by 'it's all scattered', as I'd
> love to clean this up if possible.
>
>
>>
>> *So i appreciate if someone could get me the exact step-by-step
>>  procedure (the most recent, applicable to Liberty release) to have my
>> driver released as part of Liberty and its documentation. *
>>
>
> If you still have questions, feel free to reach us out on
> #openstack-neutron.
>
> A.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Here is my objective...
>> 1) make my mechanism driver pkg available in the Neutron repository,
>> accessible by public
>> 2) update my mechanism driver in the list of supported vendor
>> plugin/driver page, along with some documentation
>>
>> Pls. advise.
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> Vad
>> --
>>
>> __
>> 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-dev] [Neutron] adding new vendor driver to upstream

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Hi,

I have a Neutron plugin (actually a mechanism_driver under ML2) developed
for Alcatel-Lucent Omniswitches and is currently being used. But it is not
part of Neutron upstream, nor listed in the docs/wiki section. I tried to
make it part of Kilo release, but that was when the decomposition proposal
was going on. Infact i reviewed the blueprint spec and provided some
comments too. Since i had to decompose my driver as per the Kilo's
decomposition spec, i deferred it to make it as part of Liberty release.

Now going thru some wiki pages, blueprint specs etc, i 'm not clear on the
procedures/criteria to make my driver integrated with upstream Neutron.
Its all scattered and some says "all vendor code" is moved out-of-tree in
Liberty, some says only vendor library is moved, some says third-party CI
system is no longer required, some says it is one of the key requirement.

*So i appreciate if someone could get me the exact step-by-step  procedure
(the most recent, applicable to Liberty release) to have my driver released
as part of Liberty and its documentation. *


Here is my objective...
1) make my mechanism driver pkg available in the Neutron repository,
accessible by public
2) update my mechanism driver in the list of supported vendor plugin/driver
page, along with some documentation

Pls. advise.

Thanks and Regards,
Vad
--
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition

[Vadivel Poonathan]

@Armando,

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that was easier for
you to go entirely out of tree, and that you have done so already. Okay,
good for you, problem solved!

One point that should be clear here is that, if someone is completely
comfortable with being entirely out of tree, and he/she has done so already
(I know of a few other examples besides the apic driver), then this
proposal does not apply to them.

>>[vad] how about the documentation in this case?... bcos it needs some
place to document (a short desc and a link to vendor page) or list these
kind of out-of-tree plugins/drivers...  just to make the user aware of the
availability of such plugins/driers which is compatible with so and so
openstack release.

I checked with the documentation team and according to them, only the
following plugins/drivers only will get documented...
1) in-tree plugins/drivers (full documentation)
2) third-party plugins/drivers (ie, one implements and follows this new
proposal, a.k.a partially-in-tree due to the integration module/code)...

*** no listing/mention about such completely out-of-tree plugins/drivers***


In my case, i have a fully working/deployed out-of-tree plugin/mech_driver
(compatible with Havana, Icehouse and Juno releases), but i couldnt get it
listed or mentioned in the openstack plugin/driver documentation. Now only
way to get my (out-of-tree) driver documented is to make it
'partially-in-the-tree' driver by implementing this new proposal. Though
this is far better then earlier requirements/approval/maintenance overhead,
i got to implement this proposal just for documentation purpose.

Thanks,
Vad
-- 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Armando M.  wrote:

>
>
> On 9 December 2014 at 13:59, Ivar Lazzaro  wrote:
>
>> I agree with Salvatore that the split is not an easy thing to achieve for
>> vendors, and I would like to bring up my case to see if there are ways to
>> make this at least a bit simpler.
>>
>> At some point I had the need to backport vendor code from Juno to
>> Icehouse (see first attempt here [0]). That in [0] was some weird approach
>> that put unnecessary burden on infra, neutron cores and even packagers, so
>> I decided to move to a more decoupled approach that was basically
>> completely splitting my code from Neutron. You can find the result here [1].
>> The focal points of this approach are:
>>
>> * **all** the vendor code is removed;
>> * Neutron is used as a dependency, pulled directly from github for UTs
>> (see test-requirements [2]) and explicitly required when installing the
>> plugin;
>> * The Database and Schema is the same as Neutron's;
>> * A migration script exists for this driver, which uses a different (and
>> unique) version_table (see env.py [3]);
>> * Entry points are properly used in setup.cfg [4] in order to provide
>> migration scripts and Driver/Plugin shortcuts for Neutron;
>> * UTs are run by including Neutron in the venv [2].
>> * The boilerplate is taken care by cookiecutter [5].
>>
>
>> The advantage of the above approach, is that it's very simple to pull off
>> (only thing you need is cookiecutter, a repo, and then you can just
>> replicate the same tree structure that existed in Neutron for your own
>> vendor code). Also it has the advantage to remove all the vendor code from
>> Neutron (did I say that already?). As far as the CI is concerned, it just
>> needs to "learn" how to install the new plugin, which will require Neutron
>> to be pre-existent.
>>
>> The typical installation workflow would be:
>> - Install Neutron normally;
>> - pull from pypi the vendor driver;
>> - run the vendor db migration script;
>> - Do everything else (configuration and execution) just like it was done
>> before.
>>
>> Note that this same satellite approach is used by GBP (I know this is a
>> bad word that once brought hundreds of ML replies, but that's just an
>> example :) ) for the Juno timeframe [6]. This shows that the very same
>> thing can be easily done for services.
>>
>
> Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that was easier for
> you to go entirely out of tree, and that you have done so already. Okay,
> good for you, problem solved!
>
> One point that should be clear here is that, if someone is completely
> comfortable with being entirely out of tree, and he/she has done so already
> (I know of a few other examples besides the apic driver), then this
> proposal does not apply to them.
>
> They are way ahead of us, and kudos to them!
>
> As far you're concerned, Ivar, if you want to promote this model for new
> plugins/drivers contributions, by all means, I encourage you to document
> this in a blog or the wiki and disseminate your findings so that people can
> adopt your model if they wanted to.
>
>
>>
>> As far as ML2 is concerned, I think we should split it as well in order
>> to treat all the plugins equally, but with the following caveats:
>>
>> * ML2 will be in a openstack repo under the networking program (kind of
>> ob

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Hi Anne,

I provided my comment in the review itself.. and pasted below for your
quick view.

Thanks,
Vad
--

Vadivel Poonathan12:05 PM

I understand the "other drivers" mean the external drivers which are not
part of the official openstack repository. So the reference drivers which
are part of the official openstack repository will be "fully" documented
and for the other such external drivers, this new idea of listing them with
a short description and a link to vendor provided webpage is proposed!.

So why again it is mentioned as ""Only drivers are covered that are
contained in the official OpenStack project repository""  - i 'm
confused!.

If this new proposal (short desc and external link) is again meant for only
the drivers that are part of official openstack main repository - then why
do we need this proposal itself?...

I believe it originally triggered from the fact that we need a placeholder
for listing the out-of-tree drivers. Since they are not part of the
official openstack release/repository, they can not be documented or listed
in the current existing documentation. Hence this idea of providing a
placeholder with short desc and external link is proposed. Hence the
out-of-tree vendors will maintain their plugin/drivers and detailed
documentation.

Pls. let me know if i missing something.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Anne Gentle  wrote:

> Hi Vadivel,
> We do have a blueprint in the docs-specs repo under review for driver
> documentation and I'd like to get your input.
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/133372/
>
> Here's a relevant excerpt:
>
> The documentation team will fully document the reference drivers as
> specified below and just add short sections for other drivers.
>
> Guidelines for drivers that will be documented fully in the OpenStack
> documentation:
>
> * The complete solution must be open source and use standard hardware
> * The driver must be part of the respective OpenStack repository
> * The driver is considered one of the reference drivers
>
> For documentation of other drivers, the following guidelines apply:
>
> * The Configuration Reference will contain a small section for each
>   driver, see below for details
> * Only drivers are covered that are contained in the official
>   OpenStack project repository for drivers (for example in the main
>   project repository or the official "third party" repository).
>
> With this policy, the docs team will document in their guides the
> following:
>
> * For cinder: volume drivers: document LVM only (TBD later: Samba,
>   glusterfs); backup drivers: document swift (TBD later: ceph)
> * For glance: Document local storage, cinder, and swift as backends
> * For neutron: document ML2 plug-in with the mechanisms drivers
>   OpenVSwitch and LinuxBridge
> * For nova: document KVM (mostly), send Xen open source call for help
> * For sahara: apache hadoop
> * For trove: document all supported Open Source database engines like
>   MySQL.
>
> Let us know in the review itself if this answers your question about
> third-party drivers not in an official repository.
> Thanks,
> Anne
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Vadivel Poonathan <
> vadivel.openst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kyle and all,
>>
>> Was there any conclusion in the design summit or the meetings afterward
>> about splitting the vendor plugins/drivers from the mainstream neutron and
>> documentation of out-of-tree plugins/drivers?...
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vad
>> --
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Kyle Mestery 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Vadivel Poonathan
>>>  wrote:
>>> > Hi Kyle and Anne,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for the clarifications... understood and it makes sense.
>>> >
>>> > However, per my understanding, the drivers (aka plugins) are meant to
>>> be
>>> > developed and supported by third-party vendors, outside of the
>>> OpenStack
>>> > community, and they are supposed to work as plug-n-play... they are
>>> not part
>>> > of the core OpenStack development, nor any of its components. If that
>>> is the
>>> > case, then why should OpenStack community include and maintain them as
>>> part
>>> > of it, for every release?...  Wouldnt it be enough to limit the scope
>>> with
>>> > the plugin framework and built-in drivers such as LinuxBridge or OVS
>>> etc?...
>>> > not extending to commercial vendors?...  (It is just a curious
>>> question,
>>> > forgive me if i missed something and correct me!).
>>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Hi Kyle and all,

Was there any conclusion in the design summit or the meetings afterward
about splitting the vendor plugins/drivers from the mainstream neutron and
documentation of out-of-tree plugins/drivers?...

Thanks,
Vad
--


On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Kyle Mestery  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Vadivel Poonathan
>  wrote:
> > Hi Kyle and Anne,
> >
> > Thanks for the clarifications... understood and it makes sense.
> >
> > However, per my understanding, the drivers (aka plugins) are meant to be
> > developed and supported by third-party vendors, outside of the OpenStack
> > community, and they are supposed to work as plug-n-play... they are not
> part
> > of the core OpenStack development, nor any of its components. If that is
> the
> > case, then why should OpenStack community include and maintain them as
> part
> > of it, for every release?...  Wouldnt it be enough to limit the scope
> with
> > the plugin framework and built-in drivers such as LinuxBridge or OVS
> etc?...
> > not extending to commercial vendors?...  (It is just a curious question,
> > forgive me if i missed something and correct me!).
> >
> You haven't misunderstood anything, we're in the process of splitting
> these things out, and this will be a prime focus of the Neutron design
> summit track at the upcoming summit.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
> > At the same time, IMHO, there must be some reference or a page within the
> > scope of OpenStack documentation (not necessarily the core docs, but some
> > wiki page or reference link or so - as Anne suggested) to mention the
> list
> > of the drivers/plugins supported as of given release and may be an
> external
> > link to know more details about the driver, if the link is provided by
> > respective vendor.
> >
> >
> > Anyway, besides my opinion, the wiki page similar to hypervisor driver
> would
> > be good for now atleast, until the direction/policy level decision is
> made
> > to maintain out-of-tree plugins/drivers.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vad
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Edgar Magana 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I second Anne’s and Kyle comments. Actually, I like very much the wiki
> >> part to provide some visibility for out-of-tree plugins/drivers but not
> into
> >> the official documentation.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Edgar
> >>
> >> From: Anne Gentle 
> >> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> >> 
> >> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 8:51 AM
> >> To: Kyle Mestery 
> >> Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> >> 
> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update
> >> about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Kyle Mestery 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Vad:
> >>>
> >>> The third-party CI is required for your upstream driver. I think
> >>> what's different from my reading of this thread is the question of
> >>> what is the requirement to have a driver listed in the upstream
> >>> documentation which is not in the upstream codebase. To my knowledge,
> >>> we haven't done this. Thus, IMHO, we should NOT be utilizing upstream
> >>> documentation to document drivers which are themselves not upstream.
> >>> When we split out the drivers which are currently upstream in neutron
> >>> into a separate repo, they will still be upstream. So my opinion here
> >>> is that if your driver is not upstream, it shouldn't be in the
> >>> upstream documentation. But I'd like to hear others opinions as well.
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is my sense as well.
> >>
> >> The hypervisor drivers are documented on the wiki, sometimes they're
> >> in-tree, sometimes they're not, but the state of testing is documented
> on
> >> the wiki. I think we could take this approach for network and storage
> >> drivers as well.
> >>
> >> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/HypervisorSupportMatrix
> >>
> >> Anne
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Kyle
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Vadivel Poonathan
> >>>  wrote:
> >>&

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Edgar,

Did we get consensus on having a wiki page for non-upstreamed drivers for
Neutron?... or Are we waiting for summit outcome on the direction on how to
handle the vendor plug-ins/drivers ?

Thanks,
Vad
--

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Vadivel Poonathan <
vadivel.openst...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Edgar Magana 
> wrote:
>
>>  I forgot to mention that I can help to coordinate the creation and
>> maintenance of the wiki for non-upstreamed drivers for Neutron.
>>
> >>[vad] Edgar, that would be nice!... but not sure whether it has to wait
> till the outcome of the design discussion on this topic in the upcoming
> summit??!...
>
> Thanks,
> Vad
> --
>
>
>> We need to be sure that we DO NOT confuse users with the current
>> information here:
>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron_Plugins_and_Drivers
>>
>>  I have been maintaining that wiki and I would like to keep just for
>> upstreamed vendor-specific plugins/drivers.
>>
>>  Edgar
>>
>>   From: Edgar Magana 
>> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 9:46 AM
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
>> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>, Kyle Mestery 
>>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update
>> about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?
>>
>>   I second Anne’s and Kyle comments. Actually, I like very much the wiki
>> part to provide some visibility for out-of-tree plugins/drivers but not
>> into the official documentation.
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>
>>  Edgar
>>
>>   From: Anne Gentle 
>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> 
>> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 8:51 AM
>> To: Kyle Mestery 
>> Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
>> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update
>> about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Kyle Mestery 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Vad:
>>>
>>> The third-party CI is required for your upstream driver. I think
>>> what's different from my reading of this thread is the question of
>>> what is the requirement to have a driver listed in the upstream
>>> documentation which is not in the upstream codebase. To my knowledge,
>>> we haven't done this. Thus, IMHO, we should NOT be utilizing upstream
>>> documentation to document drivers which are themselves not upstream.
>>> When we split out the drivers which are currently upstream in neutron
>>> into a separate repo, they will still be upstream. So my opinion here
>>> is that if your driver is not upstream, it shouldn't be in the
>>> upstream documentation. But I'd like to hear others opinions as well.
>>>
>>>
>>  This is my sense as well.
>>
>>  The hypervisor drivers are documented on the wiki, sometimes they're
>> in-tree, sometimes they're not, but the state of testing is documented on
>> the wiki. I think we could take this approach for network and storage
>> drivers as well.
>>
>>  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/HypervisorSupportMatrix
>>
>>  Anne
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kyle
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Vadivel Poonathan
>>>   wrote:
>>> > Kyle,
>>> > Gentle reminder... when you get a chance!..
>>> >
>>> > Anne,
>>> > In case, if i need to send it to different group or email-id to reach
>>> Kyle
>>> > Mestery, pls. let me know. Thanks for your help.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Vad
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Vadivel Poonathan
>>> >  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Kyle,
>>> >>
>>> >> Can you pls. comment on this discussion and confirm the requirements
>>> for
>>> >> getting out-of-tree mechanism_driver listed in the supported
>>> plugin/driver
>>> >> list of the Openstack Neutron docs.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> Vad
>>> >> --
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Anne Gentle 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>&

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Edgar Magana 
wrote:

>  I forgot to mention that I can help to coordinate the creation and
> maintenance of the wiki for non-upstreamed drivers for Neutron.
>
>>[vad] Edgar, that would be nice!... but not sure whether it has to wait
till the outcome of the design discussion on this topic in the upcoming
summit??!...

Thanks,
Vad
--


> We need to be sure that we DO NOT confuse users with the current
> information here:
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron_Plugins_and_Drivers
>
>  I have been maintaining that wiki and I would like to keep just for
> upstreamed vendor-specific plugins/drivers.
>
>  Edgar
>
>   From: Edgar Magana 
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 9:46 AM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>, Kyle Mestery 
>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update
> about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?
>
>   I second Anne’s and Kyle comments. Actually, I like very much the wiki
> part to provide some visibility for out-of-tree plugins/drivers but not
> into the official documentation.
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Edgar
>
>   From: Anne Gentle 
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 8:51 AM
> To: Kyle Mestery 
> Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update
> about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Kyle Mestery 
> wrote:
>
>> Vad:
>>
>> The third-party CI is required for your upstream driver. I think
>> what's different from my reading of this thread is the question of
>> what is the requirement to have a driver listed in the upstream
>> documentation which is not in the upstream codebase. To my knowledge,
>> we haven't done this. Thus, IMHO, we should NOT be utilizing upstream
>> documentation to document drivers which are themselves not upstream.
>> When we split out the drivers which are currently upstream in neutron
>> into a separate repo, they will still be upstream. So my opinion here
>> is that if your driver is not upstream, it shouldn't be in the
>> upstream documentation. But I'd like to hear others opinions as well.
>>
>>
>  This is my sense as well.
>
>  The hypervisor drivers are documented on the wiki, sometimes they're
> in-tree, sometimes they're not, but the state of testing is documented on
> the wiki. I think we could take this approach for network and storage
> drivers as well.
>
>  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/HypervisorSupportMatrix
>
>  Anne
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Kyle
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Vadivel Poonathan
>>   wrote:
>> > Kyle,
>> > Gentle reminder... when you get a chance!..
>> >
>> > Anne,
>> > In case, if i need to send it to different group or email-id to reach
>> Kyle
>> > Mestery, pls. let me know. Thanks for your help.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Vad
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Vadivel Poonathan
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Kyle,
>> >>
>> >> Can you pls. comment on this discussion and confirm the requirements
>> for
>> >> getting out-of-tree mechanism_driver listed in the supported
>> plugin/driver
>> >> list of the Openstack Neutron docs.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Vad
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Anne Gentle 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Vadivel Poonathan
>> >>>  wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Kevin Benton <
>> blak...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>> I think you will probably have to wait until after the summit
>> so
>> >>>> >>>>> we can
>> >>>> >>>>> see the direction that will be taken with the rest of the
>> in-tree
>> >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Hi Kyle and Anne,

Thanks for the clarifications... understood and it makes sense.

However, per my understanding, the drivers (aka plugins) are meant to be
developed and supported by third-party vendors, outside of the OpenStack
community, and they are supposed to work as plug-n-play... they are not
part of the core OpenStack development, nor any of its components. If that
is the case, then why should OpenStack community include and maintain them
as part of it, for every release?...  Wouldnt it be enough to limit the
scope with the plugin framework and built-in drivers such as LinuxBridge or
OVS etc?... not extending to commercial vendors?...  (It is just a curious
question, forgive me if i missed something and correct me!).

At the same time, IMHO, there must be some reference or a page within the
scope of OpenStack documentation (not necessarily the core docs, but some
wiki page or reference link or so - as Anne suggested) to mention the list
of the drivers/plugins supported as of given release and may be an external
link to know more details about the driver, if the link is provided by
respective vendor.


Anyway, besides my opinion, the wiki page similar to hypervisor driver
would be good for now atleast, until the direction/policy level decision is
made to maintain out-of-tree plugins/drivers.


Thanks,
Vad
--




On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Edgar Magana 
wrote:

>  I second Anne’s and Kyle comments. Actually, I like very much the wiki
> part to provide some visibility for out-of-tree plugins/drivers but not
> into the official documentation.
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Edgar
>
>   From: Anne Gentle 
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 8:51 AM
> To: Kyle Mestery 
> Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update
> about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Kyle Mestery 
> wrote:
>
>> Vad:
>>
>> The third-party CI is required for your upstream driver. I think
>> what's different from my reading of this thread is the question of
>> what is the requirement to have a driver listed in the upstream
>> documentation which is not in the upstream codebase. To my knowledge,
>> we haven't done this. Thus, IMHO, we should NOT be utilizing upstream
>> documentation to document drivers which are themselves not upstream.
>> When we split out the drivers which are currently upstream in neutron
>> into a separate repo, they will still be upstream. So my opinion here
>> is that if your driver is not upstream, it shouldn't be in the
>> upstream documentation. But I'd like to hear others opinions as well.
>>
>>
>  This is my sense as well.
>
>  The hypervisor drivers are documented on the wiki, sometimes they're
> in-tree, sometimes they're not, but the state of testing is documented on
> the wiki. I think we could take this approach for network and storage
> drivers as well.
>
>  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/HypervisorSupportMatrix
>
>  Anne
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Kyle
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Vadivel Poonathan
>>   wrote:
>> > Kyle,
>> > Gentle reminder... when you get a chance!..
>> >
>> > Anne,
>> > In case, if i need to send it to different group or email-id to reach
>> Kyle
>> > Mestery, pls. let me know. Thanks for your help.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Vad
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Vadivel Poonathan
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Kyle,
>> >>
>> >> Can you pls. comment on this discussion and confirm the requirements
>> for
>> >> getting out-of-tree mechanism_driver listed in the supported
>> plugin/driver
>> >> list of the Openstack Neutron docs.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Vad
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Anne Gentle 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Vadivel Poonathan
>> >>>  wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Kevin Benton <
>> blak...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> >>>>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Kyle,
Gentle reminder... when you get a chance!..

Anne,
In case, if i need to send it to different group or email-id to reach Kyle
Mestery, pls. let me know. Thanks for your help.

Regards,
Vad
--


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Vadivel Poonathan <
vadivel.openst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Kyle,
>
> Can you pls. comment on this discussion and confirm the requirements for
> getting out-of-tree mechanism_driver listed in the supported plugin/driver
> list of the Openstack Neutron docs.
>
> Thanks,
> Vad
> --
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Anne Gentle  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Vadivel Poonathan <
>> vadivel.openst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Kevin Benton >> > wrote:>>>>>>>>>> I think you will probably have to
>>> wait until after the summit so we can>>>>> see the direction that will be
>>> taken with the rest of the in-tree>>>>> drivers/plugins. It seems like we
>>> are moving towards removing all of them so>>>>> we would definitely need a
>>> solution to documenting out-of-tree drivers as>>>>> you suggested.*
>>>
>>> [Vad] while i 'm waiting for the conclusion on this subject, i 'm trying
>>> to setup the third-party CI/Test system and meet its requirements to get my
>>> mechanism_driver listed in the Kilo's documentation, in parallel.
>>>
>>> Couple of questions/confirmations before i proceed further on this
>>> direction...
>>>
>>> 1) Is there anything more required other than the third-party CI/Test
>>> requirements ??.. like should I still need to go-through the entire
>>> development process of submit/review/approval of the blue-print and code of
>>> my ML2 driver which was already developed and in-use?...
>>>
>>>
>> The neutron PTL Kyle Mestery can answer if there are any additional
>> requirements.
>>
>>
>>> 2) Who is the authority to clarify and confirm the above (and how do i
>>> contact them)?...
>>>
>>
>> Elections just completed, and the newly elected PTL is Kyle Mestery,
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/031433.html
>> .
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks again for your inputs...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vad
>>> --
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Anne Gentle  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Vadivel Poonathan <
>>>> vadivel.openst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Agreed on the requirements of test results to qualify the vendor
>>>>> plugin to be listed in the upstream docs.
>>>>> Is there any procedure/infrastructure currently available for this
>>>>> purpose?..
>>>>> Pls. fwd any link/pointers on those info.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Here's a link to the third-party testing setup information.
>>>>
>>>> http://ci.openstack.org/third_party.html
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to keep asking questions as you dig deeper.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Anne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Vad
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Akihiro Motoki 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Kevin and Kyle. Even if we decided to use separate tree
>>>>>> for neutron
>>>>>> plugins and drivers, they still will be regarded as part of the
>>>>>> upstream.
>>>>>> These plugins/drivers need to prove they are well integrated with
>>>>>> Neutron master
>>>>>> in some way and gating integration proves it is well tested and
>>>>>> integrated.
>>>>>> I believe it is a reasonable assumption and requirement that a vendor
>>>>>> plugin/driver
>>>>>> is listed in the upstream docs. This is a same kind of question as
>>>>>> what vendor plugins
>>>>>> are tested and worth documented in the upstream docs.
>>>>>> I hope you work with the neutron team and run the third party
>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Hi Kyle,

Can you pls. comment on this discussion and confirm the requirements for
getting out-of-tree mechanism_driver listed in the supported plugin/driver
list of the Openstack Neutron docs.

Thanks,
Vad
--

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Anne Gentle  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Vadivel Poonathan <
> vadivel.openst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Kevin Benton > > wrote:>>>>>>>>>> I think you will probably have to
>> wait until after the summit so we can>>>>> see the direction that will be
>> taken with the rest of the in-tree>>>>> drivers/plugins. It seems like we
>> are moving towards removing all of them so>>>>> we would definitely need a
>> solution to documenting out-of-tree drivers as>>>>> you suggested.*
>>
>> [Vad] while i 'm waiting for the conclusion on this subject, i 'm trying
>> to setup the third-party CI/Test system and meet its requirements to get my
>> mechanism_driver listed in the Kilo's documentation, in parallel.
>>
>> Couple of questions/confirmations before i proceed further on this
>> direction...
>>
>> 1) Is there anything more required other than the third-party CI/Test
>> requirements ??.. like should I still need to go-through the entire
>> development process of submit/review/approval of the blue-print and code of
>> my ML2 driver which was already developed and in-use?...
>>
>>
> The neutron PTL Kyle Mestery can answer if there are any additional
> requirements.
>
>
>> 2) Who is the authority to clarify and confirm the above (and how do i
>> contact them)?...
>>
>
> Elections just completed, and the newly elected PTL is Kyle Mestery,
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/031433.html
> .
>
>
>>
>> Thanks again for your inputs...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vad
>> --
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Anne Gentle  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Vadivel Poonathan <
>>> vadivel.openst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agreed on the requirements of test results to qualify the vendor plugin
>>>> to be listed in the upstream docs.
>>>> Is there any procedure/infrastructure currently available for this
>>>> purpose?..
>>>> Pls. fwd any link/pointers on those info.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Here's a link to the third-party testing setup information.
>>>
>>> http://ci.openstack.org/third_party.html
>>>
>>> Feel free to keep asking questions as you dig deeper.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Anne
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vad
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Akihiro Motoki 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Kevin and Kyle. Even if we decided to use separate tree
>>>>> for neutron
>>>>> plugins and drivers, they still will be regarded as part of the
>>>>> upstream.
>>>>> These plugins/drivers need to prove they are well integrated with
>>>>> Neutron master
>>>>> in some way and gating integration proves it is well tested and
>>>>> integrated.
>>>>> I believe it is a reasonable assumption and requirement that a vendor
>>>>> plugin/driver
>>>>> is listed in the upstream docs. This is a same kind of question as
>>>>> what vendor plugins
>>>>> are tested and worth documented in the upstream docs.
>>>>> I hope you work with the neutron team and run the third party
>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Akihiro
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Kyle Mestery 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Kevin Benton 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>The OpenStack dev and docs team dont have to worry about
>>>>> >>> gating/publishing/maintaining the vendor specific plugins/drivers.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I disagree about the gating part. If a vendor wants to have a link
>>>>> that
>>>>> >> shows they are compatible with openstack, they should be reporting
>>>>> test
>>>>&

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron documentation to update about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Hi,







*>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Kevin Benton > wrote:>>>>>>>>>> I think you will probably have to
wait until after the summit so we can>>>>> see the direction that will be
taken with the rest of the in-tree>>>>> drivers/plugins. It seems like we
are moving towards removing all of them so>>>>> we would definitely need a
solution to documenting out-of-tree drivers as>>>>> you suggested.*

[Vad] while i 'm waiting for the conclusion on this subject, i 'm trying to
setup the third-party CI/Test system and meet its requirements to get my
mechanism_driver listed in the Kilo's documentation, in parallel.

Couple of questions/confirmations before i proceed further on this
direction...

1) Is there anything more required other than the third-party CI/Test
requirements ??.. like should I still need to go-through the entire
development process of submit/review/approval of the blue-print and code of
my ML2 driver which was already developed and in-use?...

2) Who is the authority to clarify and confirm the above (and how do i
contact them)?...

Thanks again for your inputs...

Regards,
Vad
--

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Anne Gentle  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Vadivel Poonathan <
> vadivel.openst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Agreed on the requirements of test results to qualify the vendor plugin
>> to be listed in the upstream docs.
>> Is there any procedure/infrastructure currently available for this
>> purpose?..
>> Pls. fwd any link/pointers on those info.
>>
>>
> Here's a link to the third-party testing setup information.
>
> http://ci.openstack.org/third_party.html
>
> Feel free to keep asking questions as you dig deeper.
> Thanks,
> Anne
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Vad
>> --
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Akihiro Motoki 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Kevin and Kyle. Even if we decided to use separate tree for
>>> neutron
>>> plugins and drivers, they still will be regarded as part of the upstream.
>>> These plugins/drivers need to prove they are well integrated with
>>> Neutron master
>>> in some way and gating integration proves it is well tested and
>>> integrated.
>>> I believe it is a reasonable assumption and requirement that a vendor
>>> plugin/driver
>>> is listed in the upstream docs. This is a same kind of question as
>>> what vendor plugins
>>> are tested and worth documented in the upstream docs.
>>> I hope you work with the neutron team and run the third party
>>> requirements.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Akihiro
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Kyle Mestery 
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Kevin Benton 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>The OpenStack dev and docs team dont have to worry about
>>> >>> gating/publishing/maintaining the vendor specific plugins/drivers.
>>> >>
>>> >> I disagree about the gating part. If a vendor wants to have a link
>>> that
>>> >> shows they are compatible with openstack, they should be reporting
>>> test
>>> >> results on all patches. A link to a vendor driver in the docs should
>>> signify
>>> >> some form of testing that the community is comfortable with.
>>> >>
>>> > I agree with Kevin here. If you want to play upstream, in whatever
>>> > form that takes by the end of Kilo, you have to work with the existing
>>> > third-party requirements and team to take advantage of being a part of
>>> > things like upstream docs.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Kyle
>>> >
>>> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Vadivel Poonathan
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If the plan is to move ALL existing vendor specific plugins/drivers
>>> >>> out-of-tree, then having a place-holder within the OpenStack domain
>>> would
>>> >>> suffice, where the vendors can list their plugins/drivers along with
>>> their
>>> >>> documentation as how to install and use etc.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The main Openstack Neutron documentation page can explain the plugin
>>> >>> framework (ml2 type drivers, mechanism drivers, serviec plugin and
>>> so on)
>>> >>> and its purpose/usage etc, then

Re: [openstack-dev] Neutron documentation to update about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Agreed on the requirements of test results to qualify the vendor plugin to
be listed in the upstream docs.
Is there any procedure/infrastructure currently available for this
purpose?..
Pls. fwd any link/pointers on those info.

Thanks,
Vad
--

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Akihiro Motoki  wrote:

> I agree with Kevin and Kyle. Even if we decided to use separate tree for
> neutron
> plugins and drivers, they still will be regarded as part of the upstream.
> These plugins/drivers need to prove they are well integrated with Neutron
> master
> in some way and gating integration proves it is well tested and integrated.
> I believe it is a reasonable assumption and requirement that a vendor
> plugin/driver
> is listed in the upstream docs. This is a same kind of question as
> what vendor plugins
> are tested and worth documented in the upstream docs.
> I hope you work with the neutron team and run the third party requirements.
>
> Thanks,
> Akihiro
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Kyle Mestery 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Kevin Benton  wrote:
> >>>The OpenStack dev and docs team dont have to worry about
> >>> gating/publishing/maintaining the vendor specific plugins/drivers.
> >>
> >> I disagree about the gating part. If a vendor wants to have a link that
> >> shows they are compatible with openstack, they should be reporting test
> >> results on all patches. A link to a vendor driver in the docs should
> signify
> >> some form of testing that the community is comfortable with.
> >>
> > I agree with Kevin here. If you want to play upstream, in whatever
> > form that takes by the end of Kilo, you have to work with the existing
> > third-party requirements and team to take advantage of being a part of
> > things like upstream docs.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kyle
> >
> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Vadivel Poonathan
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> If the plan is to move ALL existing vendor specific plugins/drivers
> >>> out-of-tree, then having a place-holder within the OpenStack domain
> would
> >>> suffice, where the vendors can list their plugins/drivers along with
> their
> >>> documentation as how to install and use etc.
> >>>
> >>> The main Openstack Neutron documentation page can explain the plugin
> >>> framework (ml2 type drivers, mechanism drivers, serviec plugin and so
> on)
> >>> and its purpose/usage etc, then provide a link to refer the currently
> >>> supported vendor specific plugins/drivers for more details.  That way
> the
> >>> documentation will be accurate to what is "in-tree" and limit the
> >>> documentation of external plugins/drivers to have just a reference
> link. So
> >>> its now vendor's responsibility to keep their  driver's up-to-date and
> their
> >>> documentation accurate. The OpenStack dev and docs team dont have to
> worry
> >>> about gating/publishing/maintaining the vendor specific
> plugins/drivers.
> >>>
> >>> The built-in drivers such as LinuxBridge or OpenVSwitch etc can
> continue
> >>> to be "in-tree" and their documentation will be part of main Neutron's
> docs.
> >>> So the Neutron is guaranteed to work with built-in plugins/drivers as
> per
> >>> the documentation and the user is informed to refer the "external
> vendor
> >>> plug-in page" for additional/specific plugins/drivers.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Vad
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Anne Gentle 
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Kevin Benton 
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think you will probably have to wait until after the summit so we
> can
> >>>>> see the direction that will be taken with the rest of the in-tree
> >>>>> drivers/plugins. It seems like we are moving towards removing all of
> them so
> >>>>> we would definitely need a solution to documenting out-of-tree
> drivers as
> >>>>> you suggested.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, I think the minimum requirements for having a driver being
> >>>>> documented should be third-party testing of Neutron patches.
> Otherwise the
> >>>>> docs will become lit

Re: [openstack-dev] Neutron documentation to update about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Hi,

If the plan is to move ALL existing vendor specific plugins/drivers
out-of-tree, then having a place-holder within the OpenStack domain would
suffice, where the vendors can list their plugins/drivers along with their
documentation as how to install and use etc.

The main Openstack Neutron documentation page can explain the plugin
framework (ml2 type drivers, mechanism drivers, serviec plugin and so on)
and its purpose/usage etc, then provide a link to refer the currently
supported vendor specific plugins/drivers for more details.  That way the
documentation will be accurate to what is "in-tree" and limit the
documentation of external plugins/drivers to have just a reference link. So
its now vendor's responsibility to keep their  driver's up-to-date and
their documentation accurate. The OpenStack dev and docs team dont have to
worry about gating/publishing/maintaining the vendor specific
plugins/drivers.

The built-in drivers such as LinuxBridge or OpenVSwitch etc can continue to
be "in-tree" and their documentation will be part of main Neutron's docs.
So the Neutron is guaranteed to work with built-in plugins/drivers as per
the documentation and the user is informed to refer the "external vendor
plug-in page" for additional/specific plugins/drivers.


Thanks,
Vad
--


On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Anne Gentle  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Kevin Benton  wrote:
>
>> I think you will probably have to wait until after the summit so we can
>> see the direction that will be taken with the rest of the in-tree
>> drivers/plugins. It seems like we are moving towards removing all of them
>> so we would definitely need a solution to documenting out-of-tree drivers
>> as you suggested.
>>
>> However, I think the minimum requirements for having a driver being
>> documented should be third-party testing of Neutron patches. Otherwise the
>> docs will become littered with a bunch of links to drivers/plugins with no
>> indication of what actually works, which ultimately makes Neutron look bad.
>>
>
> This is my line of thinking as well, expanded to "ultimately makes
> OpenStack docs look bad" -- a perception I want to avoid.
>
> Keep the viewpoints coming. We have a crucial balancing act ahead: users
> need to trust docs and trust the drivers. Ultimately the responsibility for
> the docs is in the hands of the driver contributors so it seems those
> should be on a domain name where drivers control publishing and OpenStack
> docs are not a gatekeeper, quality checker, reviewer, or publisher.
>
> We have documented the status of hypervisor drivers on an OpenStack wiki
> page. [1] To me, that type of list could be maintained on the wiki page
> better than in the docs themselves. Thoughts? Feelings? More discussion,
> please. And thank you for the responses so far.
> Anne
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/HypervisorSupportMatrix
>
>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Vadivel Poonathan <
>> vadivel.openst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Anne,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your immediate response!...
>>>
>>> Just to clarify... I have developed and maintaining a Neutron plug-in
>>> (ML2 mechanism_driver) since Grizzly and now it is up-to-date with
>>> Icehouse. But it was never listed nor part of the main Openstack releases.
>>> Now i would like to have my plugin mentioned as "supported
>>> plugin/mechanism_driver for so and so vendor equipments" in the
>>> docs.openstack.org, but without having the actual plugin code to be
>>> posted in the main Openstack GIT repository.
>>>
>>> Reason is that I dont have plan/bandwidth to go thru the entire process
>>> of new plugin blue-print/development/review/testing etc as required by the
>>> Openstack development community. Bcos this is already developed, tested and
>>> released to some customers directly. Now I just want to get it to the
>>> official Openstack documentation, so that more people can get this and use.
>>>
>>> The plugin package is made available to public from Ubuntu repository
>>> along with necessary documentation. So people can directly get it from
>>> Ubuntu repository and use it. All i need is to get listed in the
>>> docs.openstack.org so that people knows that it exists and can be used
>>> with any Openstack.
>>>
>>> Pls. confrim whether this is something possible?...
>>>
>>> Thanks again!..
>>>
>>> Vad
>>> --
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Anne Gentle 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

Re: [openstack-dev] Neutron documentation to update about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Hi Anne,

Thanks for your immediate response!...

Just to clarify... I have developed and maintaining a Neutron plug-in (ML2
mechanism_driver) since Grizzly and now it is up-to-date with Icehouse. But
it was never listed nor part of the main Openstack releases. Now i would
like to have my plugin mentioned as "supported plugin/mechanism_driver for
so and so vendor equipments" in the docs.openstack.org, but without having
the actual plugin code to be posted in the main Openstack GIT repository.

Reason is that I dont have plan/bandwidth to go thru the entire process of
new plugin blue-print/development/review/testing etc as required by the
Openstack development community. Bcos this is already developed, tested and
released to some customers directly. Now I just want to get it to the
official Openstack documentation, so that more people can get this and use.

The plugin package is made available to public from Ubuntu repository along
with necessary documentation. So people can directly get it from Ubuntu
repository and use it. All i need is to get listed in the docs.openstack.org
so that people knows that it exists and can be used with any Openstack.

Pls. confrim whether this is something possible?...

Thanks again!..

Vad
--

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Anne Gentle  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Vadivel Poonathan <
> vadivel.openst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> How to include a new vendor plug-in (aka mechanism_driver in ML2
>> framework) into the Openstack documentation?.. In other words, is it
>> possible to include a new plug-in in the Openstack documentation page
>> without having the actual plug-in code as part of the Openstack neutron
>> repository?... The actual plug-in is posted and available for the public to
>> download as Ubuntu package. But i need to mention somewhere in the
>> Openstack documentation that this new plugin is available for the public to
>> use along with its documentation.
>>
>
> We definitely want you to include pointers to vendor documentation in the
> OpenStack docs, but I'd prefer make sure they're gate tested before they
> get listed on docs.openstack.org. Drivers change enough
> release-to-release that it's difficult to keep up maintenance.
>
> Lately I've been talking to driver contributors (hypervisor, storage,
> networking) about the out-of-tree changes possible. I'd like to encourage
> even out-of-tree drivers to get listed, but to store their main documents
> outside of docs.openstack.org, if they are gate-tested.
>
> Anyone have other ideas here?
>
> Looping in the OpenStack-docs mailing list also.
> Anne
>
>
>
>> Pls. provide some insights into whether it is possible?.. and any further
>> info on this?..
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Vad
>>
>> --
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] Neutron documentation to update about new vendor plugin, but without code in repository?

[Vadivel Poonathan]

Hi,

How to include a new vendor plug-in (aka mechanism_driver in ML2 framework)
into the Openstack documentation?.. In other words, is it possible to
include a new plug-in in the Openstack documentation page without having
the actual plug-in code as part of the Openstack neutron repository?... The
actual plug-in is posted and available for the public to download as Ubuntu
package. But i need to mention somewhere in the Openstack documentation
that this new plugin is available for the public to use along with its
documentation.

Pls. provide some insights into whether it is possible?.. and any further
info on this?..

Thanks,

Vad

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