Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org writes: On 12/09/2014 04:11 PM, by wrote: [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*** Discoverability of documentation is a serious issue. As I commented on docs spec [1], I think there are already too many places, mini-sites and random pages holding information that is relevant to users. We should make an effort to keep things discoverable, even if not maintained necessarily by the same, single team. I think the docs team means that they are not able to guarantee documentation for third-party *themselves* (and has not been able, too). The docs team is already overworked as it is now, they can't take on more responsibilities. So once Neutron's code will be split, documentation for the users of all third-party modules should find a good place to live in, indexed and searchable together where the rest of the docs are. I'm hoping that we can find a place (ideally under docs.openstack.org?) where third-party documentation can live and be maintained by the teams responsible for the code, too. Thoughts? I suggest a simple table, under docs.openstack.org, where each row has the plugin/driver name, and then links to the documentation and code. There should ideally be a very lightweight process for vendors to add their row(s) to this table, and to edit those rows. I don't think it makes sense for the vendor documentation itself to be under docs.openstack.org, while the code is out of tree. Regards, Neil ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Neil Jerram neil.jer...@metaswitch.com wrote: Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org writes: On 12/09/2014 04:11 PM, by wrote: [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*** Discoverability of documentation is a serious issue. As I commented on docs spec [1], I think there are already too many places, mini-sites and random pages holding information that is relevant to users. We should make an effort to keep things discoverable, even if not maintained necessarily by the same, single team. I think the docs team means that they are not able to guarantee documentation for third-party *themselves* (and has not been able, too). The docs team is already overworked as it is now, they can't take on more responsibilities. So once Neutron's code will be split, documentation for the users of all third-party modules should find a good place to live in, indexed and searchable together where the rest of the docs are. I'm hoping that we can find a place (ideally under docs.openstack.org?) where third-party documentation can live and be maintained by the teams responsible for the code, too. Thoughts? I suggest a simple table, under docs.openstack.org, where each row has the plugin/driver name, and then links to the documentation and code. There should ideally be a very lightweight process for vendors to add their row(s) to this table, and to edit those rows. I don't think it makes sense for the vendor documentation itself to be under docs.openstack.org, while the code is out of tree. Stef has suggested docs.openstack.org/third-party as a potential location on the review at [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/133372/. The proposal currently is that the list's source would be in the openstack-manuals repository, and the process for adding to that repo is the same as all OpenStack contributions. I plan to finalize the plan in January, thanks all for the input, and keep it coming. Anne Regards, Neil ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
On 12/09/2014 04:11 PM, by wrote: [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*** Discoverability of documentation is a serious issue. As I commented on docs spec [1], I think there are already too many places, mini-sites and random pages holding information that is relevant to users. We should make an effort to keep things discoverable, even if not maintained necessarily by the same, single team. I think the docs team means that they are not able to guarantee documentation for third-party *themselves* (and has not been able, too). The docs team is already overworked as it is now, they can't take on more responsibilities. So once Neutron's code will be split, documentation for the users of all third-party modules should find a good place to live in, indexed and searchable together where the rest of the docs are. I'm hoping that we can find a place (ideally under docs.openstack.org?) where third-party documentation can live and be maintained by the teams responsible for the code, too. Thoughts? /stef [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/133372/ ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
Dear neutron community, Can you please clarify couple points on the vendor code decomposition? - Assuming I would like to create the new driver now (Kilo development cycle) - is it already allowed (or mandatory) to follow the new process? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/ - Assuming the new process is already in place, are the following guidelines still applicable for the vendor integration code (not for vendor library)? https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron_Plugins_and_Drivers The following is a list of requirements for inclusion of code upstream: - Participation in Neutron meetings, IRC channels, and email lists. - A member of the plugin/driver team participating in code reviews of other upstream code. Regards, Yuri On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: On 12/11/14, 12:50 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 +100. I vote -1 there and would like to point out that we *must* keep history during the split, and split from u/s code base, not random repositories. If you don't know how to achieve this, ask oslo people, they did it plenty of times when graduating libraries from oslo-incubator. /Ihar On 10/12/14 19:18, Cedric OLLIVIER wrote: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140191/ 2014-12-09 18:32 GMT+01:00 Armando M. arma...@gmail.com mailto:arma...@gmail.com: By the way, if Kyle can do it in his teeny tiny time that he has left after his PTL duties, then anyone can do it! :) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140191/ This patch looses the recent hacking changes that we have made. This is a slight example to try and highly the problem that we may incur as a community. Fully cloning Dave Tucker's repository [1] and the outdated fork of the ODL ML2 MechanismDriver included raises some questions (e.g. [2]). I wish the next patch set removes some files. At least it should take the mainstream work into account (e.g. [3]) . [1] https://github.com/dave-tucker/odl-neutron-drivers [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113330/ [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96459/ ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUiXcIAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57dBMH/17unffokpb0uxqewPYrPNMI ukDzG4dW8mIP3yfbVNsHQXe6gWj/kj/SkBWJrO13BusTu8hrr+DmOmmfF/42s3vY E+6EppQDoUjR+QINBwE46nU+E1w9hIHyAZYbSBtaZQ32c8aQbmHmF+rgoeEQq349 PfpPLRI6MamFWRQMXSgF11VBTg8vbz21PXnN3KbHbUgzI/RS2SELv4SWmPgKZCEl l1K5J1/Vnz2roJn4pr/cfc7vnUIeAB5a9AuBHC6o+6Je2RDy79n+oBodC27kmmIx lVGdypoxZ9tF3yfRM9nngjkOtozNzZzaceH0Sc/5JR4uvNReVN4exzkX5fDH+SM= =dfe/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
On 12 December 2014 at 23:01, Yuriy Shovkoplias yshovkopl...@mirantis.com wrote: Dear neutron community, Can you please clarify couple points on the vendor code decomposition? - Assuming I would like to create the new driver now (Kilo development cycle) - is it already allowed (or mandatory) to follow the new process? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/ Yes. See [1] for more details. - Assuming the new process is already in place, are the following guidelines still applicable for the vendor integration code (not for vendor library)? https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron_Plugins_and_Drivers The following is a list of requirements for inclusion of code upstream: - Participation in Neutron meetings, IRC channels, and email lists. - A member of the plugin/driver team participating in code reviews of other upstream code. I see no reason why you wouldn't follow those guidelines, as a general rule of thumb. Having said that, some of the wording would need to be tweaked to take into account of the new contribution model. Bear in mind, that I started adding some developer documentation in [2], to give a practical guide to the proposal. More to follow. Cheers, Armando [1] http://docs-draft.openstack.org/80/134680/17/check/gate-neutron-specs-docs/2a7afdd/doc/build/html/specs/kilo/core-vendor-decomposition.html#adoption-and-deprecation-policy [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/neutron+branch:master+topic:bp/core-vendor-decomposition,n,z Regards, Yuri On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: On 12/11/14, 12:50 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 +100. I vote -1 there and would like to point out that we *must* keep history during the split, and split from u/s code base, not random repositories. If you don't know how to achieve this, ask oslo people, they did it plenty of times when graduating libraries from oslo-incubator. /Ihar On 10/12/14 19:18, Cedric OLLIVIER wrote: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140191/ 2014-12-09 18:32 GMT+01:00 Armando M. arma...@gmail.com mailto:arma...@gmail.com: By the way, if Kyle can do it in his teeny tiny time that he has left after his PTL duties, then anyone can do it! :) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140191/ This patch looses the recent hacking changes that we have made. This is a slight example to try and highly the problem that we may incur as a community. Fully cloning Dave Tucker's repository [1] and the outdated fork of the ODL ML2 MechanismDriver included raises some questions (e.g. [2]). I wish the next patch set removes some files. At least it should take the mainstream work into account (e.g. [3]) . [1] https://github.com/dave-tucker/odl-neutron-drivers [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113330/ [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96459/ ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUiXcIAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57dBMH/17unffokpb0uxqewPYrPNMI ukDzG4dW8mIP3yfbVNsHQXe6gWj/kj/SkBWJrO13BusTu8hrr+DmOmmfF/42s3vY E+6EppQDoUjR+QINBwE46nU+E1w9hIHyAZYbSBtaZQ32c8aQbmHmF+rgoeEQq349 PfpPLRI6MamFWRQMXSgF11VBTg8vbz21PXnN3KbHbUgzI/RS2SELv4SWmPgKZCEl l1K5J1/Vnz2roJn4pr/cfc7vnUIeAB5a9AuBHC6o+6Je2RDy79n+oBodC27kmmIx lVGdypoxZ9tF3yfRM9nngjkOtozNzZzaceH0Sc/5JR4uvNReVN4exzkX5fDH+SM= =dfe/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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 mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 +100. I vote -1 there and would like to point out that we *must* keep history during the split, and split from u/s code base, not random repositories. If you don't know how to achieve this, ask oslo people, they did it plenty of times when graduating libraries from oslo-incubator. /Ihar On 10/12/14 19:18, Cedric OLLIVIER wrote: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140191/ 2014-12-09 18:32 GMT+01:00 Armando M. arma...@gmail.com mailto:arma...@gmail.com: By the way, if Kyle can do it in his teeny tiny time that he has left after his PTL duties, then anyone can do it! :) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140191/ Fully cloning Dave Tucker's repository [1] and the outdated fork of the ODL ML2 MechanismDriver included raises some questions (e.g. [2]). I wish the next patch set removes some files. At least it should take the mainstream work into account (e.g. [3]) . [1] https://github.com/dave-tucker/odl-neutron-drivers [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113330/ [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96459/ ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUiXcIAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57dBMH/17unffokpb0uxqewPYrPNMI ukDzG4dW8mIP3yfbVNsHQXe6gWj/kj/SkBWJrO13BusTu8hrr+DmOmmfF/42s3vY E+6EppQDoUjR+QINBwE46nU+E1w9hIHyAZYbSBtaZQ32c8aQbmHmF+rgoeEQq349 PfpPLRI6MamFWRQMXSgF11VBTg8vbz21PXnN3KbHbUgzI/RS2SELv4SWmPgKZCEl l1K5J1/Vnz2roJn4pr/cfc7vnUIeAB5a9AuBHC6o+6Je2RDy79n+oBodC27kmmIx lVGdypoxZ9tF3yfRM9nngjkOtozNzZzaceH0Sc/5JR4uvNReVN4exzkX5fDH+SM= =dfe/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
On 12/11/14, 12:50 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 +100. I vote -1 there and would like to point out that we *must* keep history during the split, and split from u/s code base, not random repositories. If you don't know how to achieve this, ask oslo people, they did it plenty of times when graduating libraries from oslo-incubator. /Ihar On 10/12/14 19:18, Cedric OLLIVIER wrote: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140191/ 2014-12-09 18:32 GMT+01:00 Armando M. arma...@gmail.com mailto:arma...@gmail.com: By the way, if Kyle can do it in his teeny tiny time that he has left after his PTL duties, then anyone can do it! :) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140191/ This patch looses the recent hacking changes that we have made. This is a slight example to try and highly the problem that we may incur as a community. Fully cloning Dave Tucker's repository [1] and the outdated fork of the ODL ML2 MechanismDriver included raises some questions (e.g. [2]). I wish the next patch set removes some files. At least it should take the mainstream work into account (e.g. [3]) . [1] https://github.com/dave-tucker/odl-neutron-drivers [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113330/ [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96459/ ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUiXcIAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57dBMH/17unffokpb0uxqewPYrPNMI ukDzG4dW8mIP3yfbVNsHQXe6gWj/kj/SkBWJrO13BusTu8hrr+DmOmmfF/42s3vY E+6EppQDoUjR+QINBwE46nU+E1w9hIHyAZYbSBtaZQ32c8aQbmHmF+rgoeEQq349 PfpPLRI6MamFWRQMXSgF11VBTg8vbz21PXnN3KbHbUgzI/RS2SELv4SWmPgKZCEl l1K5J1/Vnz2roJn4pr/cfc7vnUIeAB5a9AuBHC6o+6Je2RDy79n+oBodC27kmmIx lVGdypoxZ9tF3yfRM9nngjkOtozNzZzaceH0Sc/5JR4uvNReVN4exzkX5fDH+SM= =dfe/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
Remove everything out of tree, and leave only Neutron API framework as integration platform, would lower the attractions of the whole Openstack Project. Without a default good enough reference backend from community, customers have to depends on packagers to fully test all backends for them. That's not what's being proposed. Please read the spec. There will still be a tested reference implementation from the community that gates all changes. Where the code lives has no impact on customers. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:32 AM, loy wolfe loywo...@gmail.com wrote: Remove everything out of tree, and leave only Neutron API framework as integration platform, would lower the attractions of the whole Openstack Project. Without a default good enough reference backend from community, customers have to depends on packagers to fully test all backends for them. Can we image nova without kvm, glance without swift? Cinder is weak because of default lvm backend, if in the future Ceph became the default it would be much better. If the goal of this decomposition is eventually moving default reference driver out, and the in-tree OVS backend is an eyesore, then it's better to split the Neutron core with base repo and vendor repo. They only share common base API/DB model, each vendor can extend their API, DB model freely, using a shim proxy to delegate all the service logic to their backend controller. They can choose to keep out of tree, or in tree (vendor repo) with the previous policy that contribute code reviewing for their code being reviewed by other vendors. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Kevin Benton ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140191/ 2014-12-09 18:32 GMT+01:00 Armando M. arma...@gmail.com: By the way, if Kyle can do it in his teeny tiny time that he has left after his PTL duties, then anyone can do it! :) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140191/ Fully cloning Dave Tucker's repository [1] and the outdated fork of the ODL ML2 MechanismDriver included raises some questions (e.g. [2]). I wish the next patch set removes some files. At least it should take the mainstream work into account (e.g. [3]) . [1] https://github.com/dave-tucker/odl-neutron-drivers [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113330/ [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96459/ ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
for patches) for a few days so that we will can just focus on this. I stated what I think should be the process on the review. For those who do not feel like finding the link: • Create a stack forge project for ML2 • Create the shim in Neutron • Update devstack for the to use the two repos and the shim When #3 is up and running we switch for that to be the gate. Then we start a stopwatch on all other plugins. As was pointed out on the spec (see Miguel’s comment on r15), the ML2 plugin and the OVS mechanism driver need to remain in the main Neutron repo for now. Neutron gates on ML2+OVS and landing a breaking change in the Neutron repo along with its corresponding fix to a separate ML2 repo would be all but impossible under the current integrated gating scheme. Plugins/drivers that do not gate Neutron have no such constraint. Maru Sure, I’ll catch you on IRC tomorrow. I guess that you guys will bash out the details at the meetup. Sadly I will not be able to attend – so you will have to delay on the tar and feathers. Thanks Gary From: mest...@mestery.com mest...@mestery.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 7:19 PM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Cc: openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Gary, you are still miss the point of this proposal. Please see my comments in review. We are not forcing things out of tree, we are thinning them. The text you quoted in the review makes that clear. We will look at further decomposing ML2 post Kilo, but we have to be realistic with what we can accomplish during Kilo. Find me on IRC Monday morning and we can discuss further if you still have questions and concerns. Thanks! Kyle On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi, I have raised my concerns on the proposal. I think that all plugins should be treated on an equal footing. My main concern is having the ML2 plugin in tree whilst the others will be moved out of tree will be problematic. I think that the model will be complete if the ML2 was also out of tree. This will help crystalize the idea and make sure that the model works correctly. Thanks Gary From: Armando M. arma...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, December 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Hi folks, For a few weeks now the Neutron team has worked tirelessly on [1]. This initiative stems from the fact that as the project matures, evolution of processes and contribution guidelines need to evolve with it. This is to ensure that the project can keep on thriving in order to meet the needs of an ever growing community. The effort of documenting intentions, and fleshing out the various details of the proposal is about to reach an end, and we'll soon kick the tires to put the proposal into practice. Since the spec has grown pretty big, I'll try to capture the tl;dr below. If you have any comment please do not hesitate to raise them here and/or reach out to us. tl;dr From the Kilo release, we'll initiate a set of steps to change the following areas: • Code structure: every plugin or driver that exists or wants to exist as part of Neutron project is decomposed in an slim vendor integration (which lives in the Neutron repo), plus a bulkier vendor library (which lives in an independent publicly available repo); • Contribution process: this extends to the following aspects: • Design and Development: the process is largely unchanged for the part that pertains the vendor integration; the maintainer team is fully auto governed for the design and development of the vendor library; • Testing and Continuous Integration: maintainers will be required to support their vendor integration with 3rd CI testing; the requirements for 3rd CI testing are largely unchanged; • Defect management: the process is largely unchanged, issues affecting the vendor library can be tracked with whichever tool/process the maintainer see fit. In cases where vendor library fixes need to be reflected in the vendor integration, the usual OpenStack defect management apply. • Documentation: there will be some changes to the way plugins and drivers are documented with the intention of promoting discoverability of the integrated solutions. • Adoption and transition plan: we strongly advise maintainers to stay abreast of the developments of this effort, as their code, their CI, etc will be affected. The core team will provide guidelines and support throughout
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi Kyle, I am not missing the point. I understand the proposal. I just think that it has some shortcomings (unless I misunderstand, which will certainly not be the first time and most definitely not the last). The thinning out is to have a shim in place. I understand this and this will be the entry point for the plugin. I do not have a concern for this. My concern is that we are not doing this with the ML2 off the bat. That should lead by example as it is our reference architecture. Lets not kid anyone, but we are going to hit some problems with the decomposition. I would prefer that it be done with the default implementation. Why? The proposal is to move vendor-specific logic out of the tree to increase vendor control over such code while decreasing load on reviewers. ML2 doesn’t contain vendor-specific logic - that’s the province of ML2 drivers - so it is not a good target for the proposed decomposition by itself. • Cause we will fix them quicker as it is something that prevent Neutron from moving forwards • We will just need to fix in one place first and not in N (where N is the vendor plugins) • This is a community effort – so we will have a lot more eyes on it • It will provide a reference architecture for all new plugins that want to be added to the tree • It will provide a working example for plugin that are already in tree and are to be replaced by the shim If we really want to do this, we can say freeze all development (which is just approvals for patches) for a few days so that we will can just focus on this. I stated what I think should be the process on the review. For those who do not feel like finding the link: • Create a stack forge project for ML2 • Create the shim in Neutron • Update devstack for the to use the two repos and the shim When #3 is up and running we switch for that to be the gate. Then we start a stopwatch on all other plugins. As was pointed out on the spec (see Miguel’s comment on r15), the ML2 plugin and the OVS mechanism driver need to remain in the main Neutron repo for now. Neutron gates on ML2+OVS and landing a breaking change in the Neutron repo along with its corresponding fix to a separate ML2 repo would be all but impossible under the current integrated gating scheme. Plugins/drivers that do not gate Neutron have no such constraint. Maru Sure, I’ll catch you on IRC tomorrow. I guess that you guys will bash out the details at the meetup. Sadly I will not be able to attend – so you will have to delay on the tar and feathers. Thanks Gary From: mest...@mestery.com mest...@mestery.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 7:19 PM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Cc: openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Gary, you are still miss the point of this proposal. Please see my comments in review. We are not forcing things out of tree, we are thinning them. The text you quoted in the review makes that clear. We will look at further decomposing ML2 post Kilo, but we have to be realistic with what we can accomplish during Kilo. Find me on IRC Monday morning and we can discuss further if you still have questions and concerns. Thanks! Kyle On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi, I have raised my concerns on the proposal. I think that all plugins should be treated on an equal footing. My main concern is having the ML2 plugin in tree whilst the others will be moved out of tree will be problematic. I think that the model will be complete if the ML2 was also out of tree. This will help crystalize the idea and make sure that the model works correctly. Thanks Gary From: Armando M. arma...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, December 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Hi folks, For a few weeks now the Neutron team has worked tirelessly on [1]. This initiative stems from the fact that as the project matures, evolution of processes and contribution guidelines need to evolve with it. This is to ensure that the project can keep on thriving in order to meet the needs of an ever growing community. The effort of documenting intentions, and fleshing out the various details of the proposal is about to reach an end, and we'll soon kick the tires to put the proposal into practice. Since the spec has grown pretty big, I'll try to capture the tl;dr below. If you have any comment please do not hesitate to raise them here and/or reach out to us. tl;dr
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
investment. This proposal actually promotes new and pre-existing investment. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/104452/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103728/ [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136091/ 3 - Regarding the above discussion on ML2 or not ML2. The point on co-gating is well taken. Eventually we'd like to remove this binding - because I believe the ML2 subteam would also like to have more freedom on their plugin. Do we already have an idea about how doing that without completely moving away from the db_base class approach? Sure, if you like to participate in the process, we can only welcome you! I actually asked you if you already had an idea... should I take that as a no? Thanks for your attention and for reading through this Salvatore [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/neutron/tree/neutron/plugins/vmware/plugin.py#n22 On 8 December 2014 at 21:51, Maru Newby ma...@redhat.com wrote: On Dec 7, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi Kyle, I am not missing the point. I understand the proposal. I just think that it has some shortcomings (unless I misunderstand, which will certainly not be the first time and most definitely not the last). The thinning out is to have a shim in place. I understand this and this will be the entry point for the plugin. I do not have a concern for this. My concern is that we are not doing this with the ML2 off the bat. That should lead by example as it is our reference architecture. Lets not kid anyone, but we are going to hit some problems with the decomposition. I would prefer that it be done with the default implementation. Why? The proposal is to move vendor-specific logic out of the tree to increase vendor control over such code while decreasing load on reviewers. ML2 doesn’t contain vendor-specific logic - that’s the province of ML2 drivers - so it is not a good target for the proposed decomposition by itself. • Cause we will fix them quicker as it is something that prevent Neutron from moving forwards • We will just need to fix in one place first and not in N (where N is the vendor plugins) • This is a community effort – so we will have a lot more eyes on it • It will provide a reference architecture for all new plugins that want to be added to the tree • It will provide a working example for plugin that are already in tree and are to be replaced by the shim If we really want to do this, we can say freeze all development (which is just approvals for patches) for a few days so that we will can just focus on this. I stated what I think should be the process on the review. For those who do not feel like finding the link: • Create a stack forge project for ML2 • Create the shim in Neutron • Update devstack for the to use the two repos and the shim When #3 is up and running we switch for that to be the gate. Then we start a stopwatch on all other plugins. As was pointed out on the spec (see Miguel’s comment on r15), the ML2 plugin and the OVS mechanism driver need to remain in the main Neutron repo for now. Neutron gates on ML2+OVS and landing a breaking change in the Neutron repo along with its corresponding fix to a separate ML2 repo would be all but impossible under the current integrated gating scheme. Plugins/drivers that do not gate Neutron have no such constraint. Maru Sure, I’ll catch you on IRC tomorrow. I guess that you guys will bash out the details at the meetup. Sadly I will not be able to attend – so you will have to delay on the tar and feathers. Thanks Gary From: mest...@mestery.com mest...@mestery.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 7:19 PM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Cc: openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Gary, you are still miss the point of this proposal. Please see my comments in review. We are not forcing things out of tree, we are thinning them. The text you quoted in the review makes that clear. We will look at further decomposing ML2 post Kilo, but we have to be realistic with what we can accomplish during Kilo. Find me on IRC Monday morning and we can discuss further if you still have questions and concerns. Thanks! Kyle On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi, I have raised my concerns on the proposal. I think that all plugins should be treated on an equal footing. My main concern is having the ML2 plugin in tree whilst the others will be moved out of tree will be problematic. I think that the model will be complete if the ML2 was also out of tree. This will help crystalize the idea and make sure that the model works correctly. Thanks Gary From: Armando M. arma...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
not be the first time and most definitely not the last). The thinning out is to have a shim in place. I understand this and this will be the entry point for the plugin. I do not have a concern for this. My concern is that we are not doing this with the ML2 off the bat. That should lead by example as it is our reference architecture. Lets not kid anyone, but we are going to hit some problems with the decomposition. I would prefer that it be done with the default implementation. Why? The proposal is to move vendor-specific logic out of the tree to increase vendor control over such code while decreasing load on reviewers. ML2 doesn’t contain vendor-specific logic - that’s the province of ML2 drivers - so it is not a good target for the proposed decomposition by itself. • Cause we will fix them quicker as it is something that prevent Neutron from moving forwards • We will just need to fix in one place first and not in N (where N is the vendor plugins) • This is a community effort – so we will have a lot more eyes on it • It will provide a reference architecture for all new plugins that want to be added to the tree • It will provide a working example for plugin that are already in tree and are to be replaced by the shim If we really want to do this, we can say freeze all development (which is just approvals for patches) for a few days so that we will can just focus on this. I stated what I think should be the process on the review. For those who do not feel like finding the link: • Create a stack forge project for ML2 • Create the shim in Neutron • Update devstack for the to use the two repos and the shim When #3 is up and running we switch for that to be the gate. Then we start a stopwatch on all other plugins. As was pointed out on the spec (see Miguel’s comment on r15), the ML2 plugin and the OVS mechanism driver need to remain in the main Neutron repo for now. Neutron gates on ML2+OVS and landing a breaking change in the Neutron repo along with its corresponding fix to a separate ML2 repo would be all but impossible under the current integrated gating scheme. Plugins/drivers that do not gate Neutron have no such constraint. Maru Sure, I’ll catch you on IRC tomorrow. I guess that you guys will bash out the details at the meetup. Sadly I will not be able to attend – so you will have to delay on the tar and feathers. Thanks Gary From: mest...@mestery.com mest...@mestery.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 7:19 PM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Cc: openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Gary, you are still miss the point of this proposal. Please see my comments in review. We are not forcing things out of tree, we are thinning them. The text you quoted in the review makes that clear. We will look at further decomposing ML2 post Kilo, but we have to be realistic with what we can accomplish during Kilo. Find me on IRC Monday morning and we can discuss further if you still have questions and concerns. Thanks! Kyle On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi, I have raised my concerns on the proposal. I think that all plugins should be treated on an equal footing. My main concern is having the ML2 plugin in tree whilst the others will be moved out of tree will be problematic. I think that the model will be complete if the ML2 was also out of tree. This will help crystalize the idea and make sure that the model works correctly. Thanks Gary From: Armando M. arma...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, December 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Hi folks, For a few weeks now the Neutron team has worked tirelessly on [1]. This initiative stems from the fact that as the project matures, evolution of processes and contribution guidelines need to evolve with it. This is to ensure that the project can keep on thriving in order to meet the needs of an ever growing community. The effort of documenting intentions, and fleshing out the various details of the proposal is about to reach an end, and we'll soon kick the tires to put the proposal into practice. Since the spec has grown pretty big, I'll try to capture the tl;dr below. If you have any comment please do not hesitate to raise them here and/or reach out to us. tl;dr From the Kilo release, we'll initiate a set of steps to change the following areas: • Code structure: every plugin or driver that exists or wants to exist as part of Neutron project
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
to remain in the main Neutron repo for now. Neutron gates on ML2+OVS and landing a breaking change in the Neutron repo along with its corresponding fix to a separate ML2 repo would be all but impossible under the current integrated gating scheme. Plugins/drivers that do not gate Neutron have no such constraint. Maru Sure, I’ll catch you on IRC tomorrow. I guess that you guys will bash out the details at the meetup. Sadly I will not be able to attend – so you will have to delay on the tar and feathers. Thanks Gary From: mest...@mestery.com mest...@mestery.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 7:19 PM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Cc: openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Gary, you are still miss the point of this proposal. Please see my comments in review. We are not forcing things out of tree, we are thinning them. The text you quoted in the review makes that clear. We will look at further decomposing ML2 post Kilo, but we have to be realistic with what we can accomplish during Kilo. Find me on IRC Monday morning and we can discuss further if you still have questions and concerns. Thanks! Kyle On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi, I have raised my concerns on the proposal. I think that all plugins should be treated on an equal footing. My main concern is having the ML2 plugin in tree whilst the others will be moved out of tree will be problematic. I think that the model will be complete if the ML2 was also out of tree. This will help crystalize the idea and make sure that the model works correctly. Thanks Gary From: Armando M. arma...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, December 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Hi folks, For a few weeks now the Neutron team has worked tirelessly on [1]. This initiative stems from the fact that as the project matures, evolution of processes and contribution guidelines need to evolve with it. This is to ensure that the project can keep on thriving in order to meet the needs of an ever growing community. The effort of documenting intentions, and fleshing out the various details of the proposal is about to reach an end, and we'll soon kick the tires to put the proposal into practice. Since the spec has grown pretty big, I'll try to capture the tl;dr below. If you have any comment please do not hesitate to raise them here and/or reach out to us. tl;dr From the Kilo release, we'll initiate a set of steps to change the following areas: • Code structure: every plugin or driver that exists or wants to exist as part of Neutron project is decomposed in an slim vendor integration (which lives in the Neutron repo), plus a bulkier vendor library (which lives in an independent publicly available repo); • Contribution process: this extends to the following aspects: • Design and Development: the process is largely unchanged for the part that pertains the vendor integration; the maintainer team is fully auto governed for the design and development of the vendor library; • Testing and Continuous Integration: maintainers will be required to support their vendor integration with 3rd CI testing; the requirements for 3rd CI testing are largely unchanged; • Defect management: the process is largely unchanged, issues affecting the vendor library can be tracked with whichever tool/process the maintainer see fit. In cases where vendor library fixes need to be reflected in the vendor integration, the usual OpenStack defect management apply. • Documentation: there will be some changes to the way plugins and drivers are documented with the intention of promoting discoverability of the integrated solutions. • Adoption and transition plan: we strongly advise maintainers to stay abreast of the developments of this effort, as their code, their CI, etc will be affected. The core team will provide guidelines and support throughout this cycle the ensure a smooth transition. To learn more, please refer to [1]. Many thanks, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680 ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
to remain in the main Neutron repo for now. Neutron gates on ML2+OVS and landing a breaking change in the Neutron repo along with its corresponding fix to a separate ML2 repo would be all but impossible under the current integrated gating scheme. Plugins/drivers that do not gate Neutron have no such constraint. Maru Sure, I’ll catch you on IRC tomorrow. I guess that you guys will bash out the details at the meetup. Sadly I will not be able to attend – so you will have to delay on the tar and feathers. Thanks Gary From: mest...@mestery.com mest...@mestery.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 7:19 PM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Cc: openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Gary, you are still miss the point of this proposal. Please see my comments in review. We are not forcing things out of tree, we are thinning them. The text you quoted in the review makes that clear. We will look at further decomposing ML2 post Kilo, but we have to be realistic with what we can accomplish during Kilo. Find me on IRC Monday morning and we can discuss further if you still have questions and concerns. Thanks! Kyle On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi, I have raised my concerns on the proposal. I think that all plugins should be treated on an equal footing. My main concern is having the ML2 plugin in tree whilst the others will be moved out of tree will be problematic. I think that the model will be complete if the ML2 was also out of tree. This will help crystalize the idea and make sure that the model works correctly. Thanks Gary From: Armando M. arma...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, December 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Hi folks, For a few weeks now the Neutron team has worked tirelessly on [1]. This initiative stems from the fact that as the project matures, evolution of processes and contribution guidelines need to evolve with it. This is to ensure that the project can keep on thriving in order to meet the needs of an ever growing community. The effort of documenting intentions, and fleshing out the various details of the proposal is about to reach an end, and we'll soon kick the tires to put the proposal into practice. Since the spec has grown pretty big, I'll try to capture the tl;dr below. If you have any comment please do not hesitate to raise them here and/or reach out to us. tl;dr From the Kilo release, we'll initiate a set of steps to change the following areas: • Code structure: every plugin or driver that exists or wants to exist as part of Neutron project is decomposed in an slim vendor integration (which lives in the Neutron repo), plus a bulkier vendor library (which lives in an independent publicly available repo); • Contribution process: this extends to the following aspects: • Design and Development: the process is largely unchanged for the part that pertains the vendor integration; the maintainer team is fully auto governed for the design and development of the vendor library; • Testing and Continuous Integration: maintainers will be required to support their vendor integration with 3rd CI testing; the requirements for 3rd CI testing are largely unchanged; • Defect management: the process is largely unchanged, issues affecting the vendor library can be tracked with whichever tool/process the maintainer see fit. In cases where vendor library fixes need to be reflected in the vendor integration, the usual OpenStack defect management apply. • Documentation: there will be some changes to the way plugins and drivers are documented with the intention of promoting discoverability of the integrated solutions. • Adoption and transition plan: we strongly advise maintainers to stay abreast of the developments of this effort, as their code, their CI, etc will be affected. The core team will provide guidelines and support throughout this cycle the ensure a smooth transition. To learn more, please refer to [1]. Many thanks, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680 ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
Remove everything out of tree, and leave only Neutron API framework as integration platform, would lower the attractions of the whole Openstack Project. Without a default good enough reference backend from community, customers have to depends on packagers to fully test all backends for them. Can we image nova without kvm, glance without swift? Cinder is weak because of default lvm backend, if in the future Ceph became the default it would be much better. If the goal of this decomposition is eventually moving default reference driver out, and the in-tree OVS backend is an eyesore, then it's better to split the Neutron core with base repo and vendor repo. They only share common base API/DB model, each vendor can extend their API, DB model freely, using a shim proxy to delegate all the service logic to their backend controller. They can choose to keep out of tree, or in tree (vendor repo) with the previous policy that contribute code reviewing for their code being reviewed by other vendors. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
On Dec 7, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi Kyle, I am not missing the point. I understand the proposal. I just think that it has some shortcomings (unless I misunderstand, which will certainly not be the first time and most definitely not the last). The thinning out is to have a shim in place. I understand this and this will be the entry point for the plugin. I do not have a concern for this. My concern is that we are not doing this with the ML2 off the bat. That should lead by example as it is our reference architecture. Lets not kid anyone, but we are going to hit some problems with the decomposition. I would prefer that it be done with the default implementation. Why? The proposal is to move vendor-specific logic out of the tree to increase vendor control over such code while decreasing load on reviewers. ML2 doesn’t contain vendor-specific logic - that’s the province of ML2 drivers - so it is not a good target for the proposed decomposition by itself. • Cause we will fix them quicker as it is something that prevent Neutron from moving forwards • We will just need to fix in one place first and not in N (where N is the vendor plugins) • This is a community effort – so we will have a lot more eyes on it • It will provide a reference architecture for all new plugins that want to be added to the tree • It will provide a working example for plugin that are already in tree and are to be replaced by the shim If we really want to do this, we can say freeze all development (which is just approvals for patches) for a few days so that we will can just focus on this. I stated what I think should be the process on the review. For those who do not feel like finding the link: • Create a stack forge project for ML2 • Create the shim in Neutron • Update devstack for the to use the two repos and the shim When #3 is up and running we switch for that to be the gate. Then we start a stopwatch on all other plugins. As was pointed out on the spec (see Miguel’s comment on r15), the ML2 plugin and the OVS mechanism driver need to remain in the main Neutron repo for now. Neutron gates on ML2+OVS and landing a breaking change in the Neutron repo along with its corresponding fix to a separate ML2 repo would be all but impossible under the current integrated gating scheme. Plugins/drivers that do not gate Neutron have no such constraint. Maru Sure, I’ll catch you on IRC tomorrow. I guess that you guys will bash out the details at the meetup. Sadly I will not be able to attend – so you will have to delay on the tar and feathers. Thanks Gary From: mest...@mestery.com mest...@mestery.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 7:19 PM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Cc: openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Gary, you are still miss the point of this proposal. Please see my comments in review. We are not forcing things out of tree, we are thinning them. The text you quoted in the review makes that clear. We will look at further decomposing ML2 post Kilo, but we have to be realistic with what we can accomplish during Kilo. Find me on IRC Monday morning and we can discuss further if you still have questions and concerns. Thanks! Kyle On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi, I have raised my concerns on the proposal. I think that all plugins should be treated on an equal footing. My main concern is having the ML2 plugin in tree whilst the others will be moved out of tree will be problematic. I think that the model will be complete if the ML2 was also out of tree. This will help crystalize the idea and make sure that the model works correctly. Thanks Gary From: Armando M. arma...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, December 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Hi folks, For a few weeks now the Neutron team has worked tirelessly on [1]. This initiative stems from the fact that as the project matures, evolution of processes and contribution guidelines need to evolve with it. This is to ensure that the project can keep on thriving in order to meet the needs of an ever growing community. The effort of documenting intentions, and fleshing out the various details of the proposal is about to reach an end, and we'll soon kick the tires to put the proposal into practice. Since the spec has grown pretty big, I'll try to capture the tl;dr below. If you have any comment please do not hesitate to raise them here
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
Hi, I have raised my concerns on the proposal. I think that all plugins should be treated on an equal footing. My main concern is having the ML2 plugin in tree whilst the others will be moved out of tree will be problematic. I think that the model will be complete if the ML2 was also out of tree. This will help crystalize the idea and make sure that the model works correctly. Thanks Gary From: Armando M. arma...@gmail.commailto:arma...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, December 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, openst...@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Hi folks, For a few weeks now the Neutron team has worked tirelessly on [1]. This initiative stems from the fact that as the project matures, evolution of processes and contribution guidelines need to evolve with it. This is to ensure that the project can keep on thriving in order to meet the needs of an ever growing community. The effort of documenting intentions, and fleshing out the various details of the proposal is about to reach an end, and we'll soon kick the tires to put the proposal into practice. Since the spec has grown pretty big, I'll try to capture the tl;dr below. If you have any comment please do not hesitate to raise them here and/or reach out to us. tl;dr From the Kilo release, we'll initiate a set of steps to change the following areas: * Code structure: every plugin or driver that exists or wants to exist as part of Neutron project is decomposed in an slim vendor integration (which lives in the Neutron repo), plus a bulkier vendor library (which lives in an independent publicly available repo); * Contribution process: this extends to the following aspects: * Design and Development: the process is largely unchanged for the part that pertains the vendor integration; the maintainer team is fully auto governed for the design and development of the vendor library; * Testing and Continuous Integration: maintainers will be required to support their vendor integration with 3rd CI testing; the requirements for 3rd CI testing are largely unchanged; * Defect management: the process is largely unchanged, issues affecting the vendor library can be tracked with whichever tool/process the maintainer see fit. In cases where vendor library fixes need to be reflected in the vendor integration, the usual OpenStack defect management apply. * Documentation: there will be some changes to the way plugins and drivers are documented with the intention of promoting discoverability of the integrated solutions. * Adoption and transition plan: we strongly advise maintainers to stay abreast of the developments of this effort, as their code, their CI, etc will be affected. The core team will provide guidelines and support throughout this cycle the ensure a smooth transition. To learn more, please refer to [1]. Many thanks, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
Gary, you are still miss the point of this proposal. Please see my comments in review. We are not forcing things out of tree, we are thinning them. The text you quoted in the review makes that clear. We will look at further decomposing ML2 post Kilo, but we have to be realistic with what we can accomplish during Kilo. Find me on IRC Monday morning and we can discuss further if you still have questions and concerns. Thanks! Kyle On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi, I have raised my concerns on the proposal. I think that all plugins should be treated on an equal footing. My main concern is having the ML2 plugin in tree whilst the others will be moved out of tree will be problematic. I think that the model will be complete if the ML2 was also out of tree. This will help crystalize the idea and make sure that the model works correctly. Thanks Gary From: Armando M. arma...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, December 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Hi folks, For a few weeks now the Neutron team has worked tirelessly on [1]. This initiative stems from the fact that as the project matures, evolution of processes and contribution guidelines need to evolve with it. This is to ensure that the project can keep on thriving in order to meet the needs of an ever growing community. The effort of documenting intentions, and fleshing out the various details of the proposal is about to reach an end, and we'll soon kick the tires to put the proposal into practice. Since the spec has grown pretty big, I'll try to capture the tl;dr below. If you have any comment please do not hesitate to raise them here and/or reach out to us. tl;dr From the Kilo release, we'll initiate a set of steps to change the following areas: - Code structure: every plugin or driver that exists or wants to exist as part of Neutron project is decomposed in an slim vendor integration (which lives in the Neutron repo), plus a bulkier vendor library (which lives in an independent publicly available repo); - Contribution process: this extends to the following aspects: - Design and Development: the process is largely unchanged for the part that pertains the vendor integration; the maintainer team is fully auto governed for the design and development of the vendor library; - Testing and Continuous Integration: maintainers will be required to support their vendor integration with 3rd CI testing; the requirements for 3rd CI testing are largely unchanged; - Defect management: the process is largely unchanged, issues affecting the vendor library can be tracked with whichever tool/process the maintainer see fit. In cases where vendor library fixes need to be reflected in the vendor integration, the usual OpenStack defect management apply. - Documentation: there will be some changes to the way plugins and drivers are documented with the intention of promoting discoverability of the integrated solutions. - Adoption and transition plan: we strongly advise maintainers to stay abreast of the developments of this effort, as their code, their CI, etc will be affected. The core team will provide guidelines and support throughout this cycle the ensure a smooth transition. To learn more, please refer to [1]. Many thanks, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680 ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
Hi Kyle, I am not missing the point. I understand the proposal. I just think that it has some shortcomings (unless I misunderstand, which will certainly not be the first time and most definitely not the last). The thinning out is to have a shim in place. I understand this and this will be the entry point for the plugin. I do not have a concern for this. My concern is that we are not doing this with the ML2 off the bat. That should lead by example as it is our reference architecture. Lets not kid anyone, but we are going to hit some problems with the decomposition. I would prefer that it be done with the default implementation. Why? 1. Cause we will fix them quicker as it is something that prevent Neutron from moving forwards 2. We will just need to fix in one place first and not in N (where N is the vendor plugins) 3. This is a community effort – so we will have a lot more eyes on it 4. It will provide a reference architecture for all new plugins that want to be added to the tree 5. It will provide a working example for plugin that are already in tree and are to be replaced by the shim If we really want to do this, we can say freeze all development (which is just approvals for patches) for a few days so that we will can just focus on this. I stated what I think should be the process on the review. For those who do not feel like finding the link: 1. Create a stack forge project for ML2 2. Create the shim in Neutron 3. Update devstack for the to use the two repos and the shim When #3 is up and running we switch for that to be the gate. Then we start a stopwatch on all other plugins. Sure, I’ll catch you on IRC tomorrow. I guess that you guys will bash out the details at the meetup. Sadly I will not be able to attend – so you will have to delay on the tar and feathers. Thanks Gary From: mest...@mestery.commailto:mest...@mestery.com mest...@mestery.commailto:mest...@mestery.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 7:19 PM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Cc: openst...@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Gary, you are still miss the point of this proposal. Please see my comments in review. We are not forcing things out of tree, we are thinning them. The text you quoted in the review makes that clear. We will look at further decomposing ML2 post Kilo, but we have to be realistic with what we can accomplish during Kilo. Find me on IRC Monday morning and we can discuss further if you still have questions and concerns. Thanks! Kyle On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.commailto:gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi, I have raised my concerns on the proposal. I think that all plugins should be treated on an equal footing. My main concern is having the ML2 plugin in tree whilst the others will be moved out of tree will be problematic. I think that the model will be complete if the ML2 was also out of tree. This will help crystalize the idea and make sure that the model works correctly. Thanks Gary From: Armando M. arma...@gmail.commailto:arma...@gmail.com Reply-To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Saturday, December 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM To: OpenStack List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, openst...@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openst...@lists.openstack.org openst...@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openst...@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition Hi folks, For a few weeks now the Neutron team has worked tirelessly on [1]. This initiative stems from the fact that as the project matures, evolution of processes and contribution guidelines need to evolve with it. This is to ensure that the project can keep on thriving in order to meet the needs of an ever growing community. The effort of documenting intentions, and fleshing out the various details of the proposal is about to reach an end, and we'll soon kick the tires to put the proposal into practice. Since the spec has grown pretty big, I'll try to capture the tl;dr below. If you have any comment please do not hesitate to raise them here and/or reach out to us. tl;dr From the Kilo release, we'll initiate a set of steps to change the following areas: * Code structure: every plugin or driver that exists or wants to exist as part of Neutron project is decomposed in an slim vendor integration (which lives in the Neutron repo), plus a bulkier vendor library (which lives in an independent publicly available repo); * Contribution process: this extends to the following aspects: * Design and Development: the process
[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
Hi folks, For a few weeks now the Neutron team has worked tirelessly on [1]. This initiative stems from the fact that as the project matures, evolution of processes and contribution guidelines need to evolve with it. This is to ensure that the project can keep on thriving in order to meet the needs of an ever growing community. The effort of documenting intentions, and fleshing out the various details of the proposal is about to reach an end, and we'll soon kick the tires to put the proposal into practice. Since the spec has grown pretty big, I'll try to capture the tl;dr below. If you have any comment please do not hesitate to raise them here and/or reach out to us. tl;dr From the Kilo release, we'll initiate a set of steps to change the following areas: - Code structure: every plugin or driver that exists or wants to exist as part of Neutron project is decomposed in an slim vendor integration (which lives in the Neutron repo), plus a bulkier vendor library (which lives in an independent publicly available repo); - Contribution process: this extends to the following aspects: - Design and Development: the process is largely unchanged for the part that pertains the vendor integration; the maintainer team is fully auto governed for the design and development of the vendor library; - Testing and Continuous Integration: maintainers will be required to support their vendor integration with 3rd CI testing; the requirements for 3rd CI testing are largely unchanged; - Defect management: the process is largely unchanged, issues affecting the vendor library can be tracked with whichever tool/process the maintainer see fit. In cases where vendor library fixes need to be reflected in the vendor integration, the usual OpenStack defect management apply. - Documentation: there will be some changes to the way plugins and drivers are documented with the intention of promoting discoverability of the integrated solutions. - Adoption and transition plan: we strongly advise maintainers to stay abreast of the developments of this effort, as their code, their CI, etc will be affected. The core team will provide guidelines and support throughout this cycle the ensure a smooth transition. To learn more, please refer to [1]. Many thanks, Armando [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition
Hello, As follow-up action after the Design Summit Session on Core/Vendor split, please find the proposal outlined here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/ I know that Anita will tell me off since I asked for reviews on the ML, but I felt that it was important to raise awareness, even more than necessary :) I also want to stress the fact that this proposal was not going to be possible without the help of everyone we talked to over the last few weeks, and gave us constructive feedback. Finally, a special thanks goes to Maru Newby and Kevin Benton who helped with most parts of the proposal. Let the review tango begin! Cheers, Armando ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
