Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Thanks for resuming this up Armando! On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Armando M. wrote: > > > On 29 March 2016 at 20:43, Vikram Choudhary wrote: > >> Hi Armando, >> >> We want to add the support for a new ML2 driver. Can you please guide >> what is the step

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 29 March 2016 at 20:43, Vikram Choudhary wrote: > Hi Armando, > > We want to add the support for a new ML2 driver. Can you please guide what > is the step moving forward? > > Thanks > Vikram > Vikram, Apologies for the late reply, the Mitaka release tasks took precedence

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Hi Armando, We want to add the support for a new ML2 driver. Can you please guide what is the step moving forward? Thanks Vikram On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Armando M. wrote: > Hi folks, > > Status update on this matter: > > Russell, Kyle and I had a number of patches

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Hi folks, Status update on this matter: Russell, Kyle and I had a number of patches out [1], to try and converge on how to better organize Neutron-related efforts. As a result, a number of patches merged and a number of patches are still pending. Because of Mitaka feature freeze, other

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

016 at 11:37 PM To: OpenStack List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Cc: Ayal Baron <ayal.ba...@huawei.com<mailto:ayal.ba...@huawei.com>>, Eran Gampel <eran.gam...@huawei.com<mailto:eran.gam...@huawei.com>> Subje

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 02/05/2016 10:36 AM, Neil Jerram wrote: > As some others have said, I see the current discussion as being about > the chain of accountability, from a stadium project, through Neutron, up > to the OpenStack TC and board. IIUC, Armando and other cores feel that > there is a gap there - because

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 04/02/16 22:39, Assaf Muller wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 04:20:50AM EST, Assaf Muller wrote: >> >>> Currently I don't understand why >>> being a part of the stadium is good or bad for a networking project, >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 5 February 2016 at 05:41, Gal Sagie wrote: > Armando, > > I think that contributing and innovating in Dragonflow to implement > Neutron in an open way and serve as an alternative and as an example > for distributed networking patterns IS driving Neutron forward, i am

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Armando, I think that contributing and innovating in Dragonflow to implement Neutron in an open way and serve as an alternative and as an example for distributed networking patterns IS driving Neutron forward, i am very sad that you fail to see this and try to pick to my review/patches count.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Hi Assaf, I think that if we define a certain criteria we need to make sure that it applies to everyone equally. and it is well understood. I have contributed and still am to both OVN and Dragonflow and hope to continue do so in the future, i want to see both of these solutions become a great

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 04:20:50AM EST, Assaf Muller wrote: >> I understand you see 'Dragonflow being part of the Neutron stadium' >> and 'Dragonflow having high visibility' as tied together. I'm curious, >> from a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 02/04/2016 05:36 PM, Assaf Muller wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 04:20:50AM EST, Assaf Muller wrote: >>> I understand you see 'Dragonflow being part of the Neutron stadium' >>> and 'Dragonflow having high

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Gal Sagie wrote: > As i have commented on the patch i will also send this to the mailing list: > > I really dont see why Dragonflow is not part of this list, given the > criteria you listed. > > Dragonflow is fully developed under

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Gal Sagie wrote: > As i have commented on the patch i will also send this to the mailing list: > > I really dont see why Dragonflow is not part of this list, given the > criteria you listed. > > Dragonflow is fully developed under

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Assaf Muller wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Gal Sagie wrote: >> As i have commented on the patch i will also send this to the mailing list: >> >> I really dont see why Dragonflow is not part of this list, given

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 04:20:50AM EST, Assaf Muller wrote: > I understand you see 'Dragonflow being part of the Neutron stadium' > and 'Dragonflow having high visibility' as tied together. I'm curious, > from a practical perspective, how does being a part of the stadium > give Dragonflow

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 4 February 2016 at 04:05, Gal Sagie wrote: > Hi Assaf, > > I think that if we define a certain criteria we need to make sure that it > applies to everyone equally. > and it is well understood. > I must admit I am still waking up and going through the entire logs etc.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 11/30/2015 07:56 PM, Armando M. wrote: > I would like to suggest that we evolve the structure of the Neutron > governance, so that most of the deliverables that are now part of the > Neutron stadium become standalone projects that are entirely > self-governed (they have their own core/release

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

As i have commented on the patch i will also send this to the mailing list: I really dont see why Dragonflow is not part of this list, given the criteria you listed. Dragonflow is fully developed under Neutron/OpenStack, no other repositories. It is fully Open source and already have a community

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Armando M. wrote: > For whom of you is interested in the conversation, the topic was brought > for discussion at the latest TC meeting [1]. Unfortunately I was unable > to join, however I would like to try and respond to some of the comments > made to clarify my position on the matter: > >> ttx:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 12/09/2015 01:46 AM, Armando M. wrote: > > > On 3 December 2015 at 02:21, Thierry Carrez > wrote: > > Armando M. wrote: > > On 2 December 2015 at 01:16, Thierry Carrez >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Excerpts from Armando M.'s message of 2015-12-08 22:46:16 -0800: > On 3 December 2015 at 02:21, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > > Armando M. wrote: > > > On 2 December 2015 at 01:16, Thierry Carrez > > > wrote: > > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 12/09/2015 07:06 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 12/09/2015 01:46 AM, Armando M. wrote: >> >> >> On 3 December 2015 at 02:21, Thierry Carrez > > wrote: >> >> Armando M. wrote: >> > On 2 December 2015 at 01:16, Thierry Carrez

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

> On Dec 9, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Armando M.'s message of 2015-12-08 22:46:16 -0800: >> On 3 December 2015 at 02:21, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> >>> Armando M. wrote: On 2 December 2015 at 01:16, Thierry Carrez

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 07:06:40AM EST, Sean Dague wrote: > Changing the REST API isn't innovation, it's incompatibility for end > users. If we're ever going to have compatible clouds and a real interop > effort, the APIs for all our services need to be very firmly controlled. > Extending the API

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 9 December 2015 at 09:31, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > > On Dec 9, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > Excerpts from Armando M.'s message of 2015-12-08 22:46:16 -0800: > >> On 3 December 2015 at 02:21, Thierry Carrez

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 9 December 2015 at 04:06, Sean Dague wrote: > On 12/09/2015 01:46 AM, Armando M. wrote: > > > > > > On 3 December 2015 at 02:21, Thierry Carrez > > wrote: > > > > Armando M. wrote: > > > On 2 December 2015 at

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 9 December 2015 at 02:02, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Armando M. wrote: > > For whom of you is interested in the conversation, the topic was brought > > for discussion at the latest TC meeting [1]. Unfortunately I was unable > > to join, however I would like to try and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 9 December 2015 at 06:25, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Armando M.'s message of 2015-12-08 22:46:16 -0800: > > On 3 December 2015 at 02:21, Thierry Carrez > wrote: > > > > > Armando M. wrote: > > > > On 2 December 2015 at 01:16, Thierry

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 3 December 2015 at 02:21, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Armando M. wrote: > > On 2 December 2015 at 01:16, Thierry Carrez > > wrote: > >> Armando M. wrote: > >> >> One solution is, like you mentioned, to make some

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Armando M. wrote: > On 2 December 2015 at 01:16, Thierry Carrez > wrote: >> Armando M. wrote: >> >> One solution is, like you mentioned, to make some (or all) of them >> >> full-fledged project teams. Be aware that this means the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Armando M. wrote: >> One solution is, like you mentioned, to make some (or all) of them >> full-fledged project teams. Be aware that this means the TC would judge >> those new project teams individually and might reject them if we feel >> the requirements are not met. We might want to clarify what

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 2 December 2015 at 01:16, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Armando M. wrote: > >> One solution is, like you mentioned, to make some (or all) of them > >> full-fledged project teams. Be aware that this means the TC would judge > >> those new project teams individually and might

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 30 November 2015 at 23:43, Gal Sagie wrote: > To me, and i could got it wrong, the stadium means two main things: (At > this point in time) > > 1) Remove/ease the burden of OpenStack governance and extra job for > projects/drivers that implement Neutron and are

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 1 December 2015 at 03:03, Neil Jerram wrote: > On 01/12/15 10:42, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Armando M. wrote: > >> [...] > >> So my question is: would revisiting/clarifying the concept be due after > >> some time we have seen it in action? I would like to think so.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 1 December 2015 at 02:40, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Armando M. wrote: > > [...] > > So my question is: would revisiting/clarifying the concept be due after > > some time we have seen it in action? I would like to think so. > > I also think it's time to revisit this

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 1 December 2015 at 02:40, Neil Jerram wrote: > On 01/12/15 05:16, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > Part of the issue is that in a year, we added all the repos above. And > > all of said repos were all heading over to infra with the same newbie > > questions/mistakes. Not a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 01/12/15 04:13, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 11/30/2015 07:56 PM, Armando M. wrote: >> As a result, there is quite an effort imposed on the PTL, the various >> liaisons (release, infra, docs, testing, etc) and the core team to >> help manage the existing relationships and to ensure that the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 01/12/15 05:16, Doug Wiegley wrote: > Part of the issue is that in a year, we added all the repos above. And > all of said repos were all heading over to infra with the same newbie > questions/mistakes. Not a bad thing in and of itself, but the sheer > volume was causing a lot of infra load. So

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Armando M. wrote: > [...] > So my question is: would revisiting/clarifying the concept be due after > some time we have seen it in action? I would like to think so. I also think it's time to revisit this experience now that it's been around for some time. On one hand the Neutron stadium allowed

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 01/12/15 10:42, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Armando M. wrote: >> [...] >> So my question is: would revisiting/clarifying the concept be due after >> some time we have seen it in action? I would like to think so. > I also think it's time to revisit this experience now that it's been > around for

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > Hi folks, > > The stadium concept was introduced more or less formally since April of this > year. At the time it was introduced (see [1]), the list of deliverables > included neutron, client, specs and *-aas services.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 30 November 2015 at 20:47, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > Hi folks, > > The stadium concept was introduced more or less formally since April of > this year. At the time it was introduced (see [1]),

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 23:11 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > Some additional context: there are a few proposals for additional git > repositories for Neutron that have been put on hold while we sort this out. > > Add networking-bagpipe: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/244736/ > > Add the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > Some additional context: there are a few proposals for additional git > repositories for Neutron that have been put on hold while we sort this out. > > Add networking-bagpipe: >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:15 PM, Armando M. wrote: > > > > On 30 November 2015 at 20:47, Doug Wiegley > wrote: > >> On Nov 30, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Armando M. >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

Some additional context: there are a few proposals for additional git repositories for Neutron that have been put on hold while we sort this out. Add networking-bagpipe: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/244736/ Add the Astara driver: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/230699/ Add

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

On 30 November 2015 at 20:11, Russell Bryant wrote: > Some additional context: there are a few proposals for additional git > repositories for Neutron that have been put on hold while we sort this out. > > Add networking-bagpipe: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/244736/ >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Evolving the stadium concept

To me, and i could got it wrong, the stadium means two main things: (At this point in time) 1) Remove/ease the burden of OpenStack governance and extra job for projects/drivers that implement Neutron and are "relatively small" This saves the projects that just want to implement Neutron to be