Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 09/06/2016 11:27 AM, Alon Marx wrote: I want to share our plans to open the IBM Storage driver source code. Historically we started our way in cinder way back (in Essex if I'm not mistaken) with just a small piece of code in the community while keeping most of the driver code closed. Since

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:24:09AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Avishay Traeger wrote: > > There are a number of drivers that require closed-source tools to > > communicate with the storage. 3 others that I've come across recently: > > > > * EMC VNX: requires Navisphere CLI v7.32 or higher >

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

Avishay Traeger wrote: > There are a number of drivers that require closed-source tools to > communicate with the storage. 3 others that I've come across recently: > > * EMC VNX: requires Navisphere CLI v7.32 or higher > * Hitachi storage volume driver: requires RAID Manager Ver 01-32-03/01

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

There are a number of drivers that require closed-source tools to communicate with the storage. 3 others that I've come across recently: - EMC VNX: requires Navisphere CLI v7.32 or higher - Hitachi storage volume driver: requires RAID Manager Ver 01-32-03/01 or later for VSP

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 9/7/2016 8:47 AM, John Griffith wrote: On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Alon Marx > wrote: I want to share our plans to open the IBM Storage driver source code. Historically we started our way in cinder way back (in Essex if I'm not

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Alon Marx wrote: > I want to share our plans to open the IBM Storage driver source code. > Historically we started our way in cinder way back (in Essex if I'm not > mistaken) ​You're mistaken, Cinder didn't exist at that time... but it's

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 09/06/2016 05:27 PM, Alon Marx wrote: > I want to share our plans to open the IBM Storage driver source code. > Historically we started our way in cinder way back (in Essex if I'm > not mistaken) with just a small piece of code in the community while > keeping most of the driver code closed.

[openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

I want to share our plans to open the IBM Storage driver source code. Historically we started our way in cinder way back (in Essex if I'm not mistaken) with just a small piece of code in the community while keeping most of the driver code closed. Since then the code has grown, but we kept with

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] API interaction changes overview

> On 03 Sep 2016, at 20:07, Duncan Thomas wrote: > > There's also another API limitation to be fixed - whether it goes in the > initial API fixup or gets done later, which is a round one cinder serving > multiple nova or other consumers:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers What is the logic for that? It's a massive duplication of effort, and it leads to defacto forks and inconsistencies between clouds - exactly what the OpenStack m

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] API interaction changes overview

There's also another API limitation to be fixed - whether it goes in the initial API fixup or gets done later, which is a round one cinder serving multiple nova or other consumers: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/362637/ On 2 September 2016 at 22:51, Matt Riedemann

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] API interaction changes overview

On 9/1/2016 4:09 PM, Ildiko Vancsa wrote: Hi All, As we skipped a few meetings and we also reached the N-3 milestone this week I would like to summarise where we are currently with our plans. At the beginning of the Newton cycle we decided to refactor the Cinder API around attach and detach

[openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] API interaction changes overview

Hi All, As we skipped a few meetings and we also reached the N-3 milestone this week I would like to summarise where we are currently with our plans. At the beginning of the Newton cycle we decided to refactor the Cinder API around attach and detach to make Cinder more a standalone module and

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] The State of the NFS Driver ...

Hi Jay, Thanks for the update. I can give a look in the NFS job, it will need some care, like configuring the slave to be a Ubuntu Xenial and setting apparmor, so when you finish the cloning support we have an operational job. Erlon On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Jay S. Bryant <

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] The State of the NFS Driver ...

On 08/30/2016 08:50 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 8/30/2016 10:50 AM, Jay S. Bryant wrote: All, I wanted to follow up on the e-mail thread [1] on Cloning support in the NFS driver. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the plan for the NFS driver going forward as I see it. First, I am

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] The State of the NFS Driver ...

Thanks for the write up Jay. This is useful. Added [Cinder] tag to subject line... On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:50:38AM -0500, Jay S. Bryant wrote: > All, > > I wanted to follow up on the e-mail thread [1] on Cloning support in > the NFS driver. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the plan

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [neutron] [ironic] [api] [doc] API status report

Hi cinder block storage peeps: I haven't heard from you on your comfort level with publishing so I went ahead and made the publishing job myself with this review: https://review.openstack.org/361475 Please let me know your thoughts there. Is the document ready to publish? Need anything else to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

not > upstream? > > -Original Message- > From: Walter A. Boring IV [mailto:walter.bor...@hpe.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 12:34 PM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable > policy for drivers > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers On 08/08/2016 02:28 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Duncan Thomas wrote: > >> On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish >> wrote: >> Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in >&g

[openstack-dev] [Cinder] Design Summit Space Needs

Hey team, I need to let folks know what we would like for rooms in Barcelona. This is always the tricky part of guesstimating what we will need by then. I'll bring this up in next week's meeting to discuss, but I wanted to get it out there so everyone could start thinking about it now. In Austin

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder]concerns on driver deprecation policy

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 03:44:10AM +, Husheng (TommyLike, R IT Equipment Dept) wrote: > Hi all, > Sorry for absence from IRC meeting of this week and put forward this topic on > driver deprecation policy again. Actually I support the driver support tag > policy completely, it's a reasonable

[openstack-dev] [cinder]concerns on driver deprecation policy

Hi all, Sorry for absence from IRC meeting of this week and put forward this topic on driver deprecation policy again. Actually I support the driver support tag policy completely, it's a reasonable policy for both sides, and these below are my 2 concerns: 1. With the release of driver

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] locking concern with os-brick

Sean Dague wrote: On 08/14/2016 06:23 PM, Patrick East wrote: We were talking through some of the implications of this change in #openstack-nova, and the following further concerns came out. 1) Unix permissions for services in distros Both Ubuntu and RHEL have a dedicated service user per

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] locking concern with os-brick

On 08/14/2016 06:23 PM, Patrick East wrote: > I like the sound of a more unified way to interact with compute node > services. Having a standardized approach for inter-service > synchronization for controlling system resources would be sweet (even if > it is just a more sane way of using local

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] locking concern with os-brick

On 08/14/2016 06:23 PM, Patrick East wrote: > I like the sound of a more unified way to interact with compute node > services. Having a standardized approach for inter-service > synchronization for controlling system resources would be sweet (even if > it is just a more sane way of using local

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][drivers] Backend and volume health reporting

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, John Griffith wrote: > > ​I'd like to get a more detailed use case and example of a problem you > want to solve with this. I have a number of concerns including those I > raised in your "list manageable volumes" proposal.​ Most

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] locking concern with os-brick

In-case folks are not following comments on all the various forums for this discussion. We've got changes up to address the concerns raised so far on the immediate problem: Devstack (changing default config option to be shared): https://review.openstack.org/341744 Cinder (release note):

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] locking concern with os-brick

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 08:04:13PM -0700, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Sean McGinnis wrote: > >On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:55:47AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > >>A devstack patch was pushed earlier this cycle around os-brick - > >>https://review.openstack.org/341744 > >> > >>Apparently there are some

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] locking concern with os-brick

Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-08-13 20:04:13 -0700: The larger issue here IMHO is that there is now a API around locking that might be better suited targeting an actual lock management system (say redis or zookeeper or etcd or ...). The more I look at this,

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][drivers] Backend and volume health reporting

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Avishay Traeger wrote: > Hi all, > I would like to propose working on a new feature for Ocata to provide > health information for Cinder backends and volumes. Currently, a volume's > status basically reflects the last management

[openstack-dev] [cinder][drivers] Backend and volume health reporting

Hi all, I would like to propose working on a new feature for Ocata to provide health information for Cinder backends and volumes. Currently, a volume's status basically reflects the last management operation performed on it - it will be in error state only as a result of a failed management

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] locking concern with os-brick

Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-08-13 20:04:13 -0700: > The larger issue here IMHO is that there is now a API > around locking that might be better suited targeting an actual lock > management system (say redis or zookeeper or etcd or ...). The more I look at this, the more I

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] locking concern with os-brick

Sean McGinnis wrote: On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:55:47AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: A devstack patch was pushed earlier this cycle around os-brick - https://review.openstack.org/341744 Apparently there are some os-brick operations that are only safe if the nova and cinder lock paths are set to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] locking concern with os-brick

On 8/12/2016 8:52 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 8/12/2016 8:24 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:55:47AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: A devstack patch was pushed earlier this cycle around os-brick - https://review.openstack.org/341744 Apparently there are some os-brick operations

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] locking concern with os-brick

On 8/12/2016 8:24 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:55:47AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: A devstack patch was pushed earlier this cycle around os-brick - https://review.openstack.org/341744 Apparently there are some os-brick operations that are only safe if the nova and cinder

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Duncan Thomas wrote: > [...] > To turn the question around, what is the downside of loosing the tag? The tag does not exist in a vacuum. It describes a behavior that operators want. They want a sane deprecation policy so that the blanket is not pulled from under them without a warning. They want

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 12 August 2016 at 16:09, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > How about: 4. Take 3rd-party drivers to a separate cinder-extra-drivers > repository/deliverable under the Cinder team, one that would /not/ have > follows-stable-policy or follows-standard-deprecation tags ? That >

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] locking concern with os-brick

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:55:47AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > A devstack patch was pushed earlier this cycle around os-brick - > https://review.openstack.org/341744 > > Apparently there are some os-brick operations that are only safe if the > nova and cinder lock paths are set to be the same

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Duncan Thomas wrote: > [...] > Given this need, what are our options? > > 1. We could do all this outside Openstack infrastructure. There are > significant downsides to doing so from organisational, maintenance, cost > etc points of view. Also means that the place vendors go for these > patches

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Is there some docs for it somewhere? Or some quick way of telling that we've done it and gotten it right? On 12 Aug 2016 08:17, "Andreas Jaeger" wrote: > On 08/12/2016 04:25 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > > On 11 Aug 2016 3:13 PM, "Ben Swartzlander" >

[openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] locking concern with os-brick

A devstack patch was pushed earlier this cycle around os-brick - https://review.openstack.org/341744 Apparently there are some os-brick operations that are only safe if the nova and cinder lock paths are set to be the same thing. Though that hasn't yet hit release notes or other documentation yet

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/12/2016 04:25 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > On 11 Aug 2016 3:13 PM, "Ben Swartzlander" > wrote: >> >> ... >> >> I still don't agree with this stance. Code doesn't just magically stop > working. Code breaks when things change which aren't

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 11 Aug 2016 3:13 PM, "Ben Swartzlander" wrote: > > ... > > I still don't agree with this stance. Code doesn't just magically stop working. Code breaks when things change which aren't version controlled properly or when you have undeclared dependencies. Well this is why

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/11/2016 04:13 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 08/10/2016 01:57 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:52:55AM -0700, Clay Gerrard wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: A big source of problems IMO is that tempest doesn't

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/10/2016 01:57 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:52:55AM -0700, Clay Gerrard wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: A big source of problems IMO is that tempest doesn't have stable branches. We use the master branch

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [neutron] [ironic] [api] [doc] API status report

> > Sorry, in reviewing further today I found another project that does not > have a publish job but has in-tree source files: > > cinder > > Team cinder: can you let me know where you are in your publishing comfort > level? Please add an api-ref-jobs: line with a target of block-storage > to

[openstack-dev] [cinder] [neutron] [ironic] [api] [doc] API status report

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Anne Gentle wrote: > Hi all, > I wanted to report on status and answer any questions you all have about > the API reference and guide publishing process. > > The expectation is that we provide all OpenStack API information on >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Pending removal of Scality volume driver

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:26:28PM +0200, Nicolas Trangez wrote: > Sean and team, > > Sadly enough, we have been unable to resolve the recent issues in the > system/lab backing our CI server (originally caused by some hardware > migrations), and it's unclear when this would be back in a stable >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Pending removal of Scality volume driver

Sean and team, On Wed, 2016-08-03 at 08:55 -0300, Erlon Cruz wrote: > Hi sean, I think it would worth to CC the contact info informed in > the CI > Wiki (openstack...@scality.com). > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Sean McGinnis > wrote: > > > > > Tomorrow is the one

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/qa-specs/specs/tempest/implemented/ > branchless-tempest.html > > > This was actually a *great* read, thanks for that link! -Clay

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > We also test every incoming > tempest change on all the stable branches, and nothing can land unless it > works > on all supported branches. Did not know that, pretty awesome! > -Clay

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:52:55AM -0700, Clay Gerrard wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Ben Swartzlander > wrote: > > > > > A big source of problems IMO is that tempest doesn't have stable branches. > > We use the master branch of tempest to test stable branches

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > But, to keep the gate running > involves a lot of coordination between multiple projects that are tightly > coupled. Things like an entire extra set of job definitions in zuul, a > branch on > global requirements,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:56:09AM -0700, Clay Gerrard wrote: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Matthew Treinish > wrote: > > > When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci against > > it goes away. > > > But... like... version control? I mean I'm

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci against > it goes away. But... like... version control? I mean I'm sure it's more complicated than that or you wouldn't have said this - but I

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > > A big source of problems IMO is that tempest doesn't have stable branches. > We use the master branch of tempest to test stable branches of other > projects, and tempest regularly adds new features. > How come

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 12:00:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: > On 08/10/2016 11:33 AM, Luigi Toscano wrote: > > On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 17:00:36 CEST Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > >> Luigi Toscano wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 19:42 Aug 09, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > Mike, you must have left the midcycle by the time this topic came up. On the > issue of out-of-tree drivers, I specifically offered this proposal (a > community managed mechanism for distributing driver bugfix backports) as an > compromise alternative to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/10/2016 11:33 AM, Luigi Toscano wrote: On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 17:00:36 CEST Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Luigi Toscano wrote: On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: So I tried to get into

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 17:00:36 CEST Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Luigi Toscano wrote: > > On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: > >> On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > >>> So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 10/08/2016 16:04, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Luigi Toscano wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: >>> On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Luigi Toscano wrote: On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: > On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > > So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, > > and while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability to > > convince my employer it should

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability to convince my employer it should be a priority), one thing I did notice it that much of the breakage seemed to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:33:52AM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: > So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and > while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability to convince > my employer it should be a priority), one thing I did notice it that much > of

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Duncan Thomas wrote: So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability to convince my employer it should be a priority), one thing I did notice it that much of the breakage

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-08-09 15:56:57 -0700 (-0700), Mike Perez wrote: As others have said and as being a Cinder stable core myself, the status-quo and this proposal itself are terrible practices because there is no testing behind it, thereby it not being up to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability to convince my employer it should be a priority), one thing I did notice it that much of the breakage seemed to come from outside cinder - many of the libraries

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:16:02PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > Sorry, I wasn't a part of the sessions in Austin on the topic of long > terms support of Cinder drivers. There's a lot going on during the summits > these days. For the record the session in Austin, that I think Matt was

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:16:02PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Matthew Treinish > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:28:52PM -0700, John Griffith

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:16:02PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Matthew Treinish > wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:28:52PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sean McGinnis > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:28:52PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sean McGinnis > wrote: > > > > > . > > > > > > > > Mike, you must have left the midcycle by

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:39:55AM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > So I guess what I'm asking: If stable branches exist as a place for > package maintainers to collaborate on a common set of backported > fixes, and are not actually usable to that end, why do we continue > to provide them? I don't

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:21:19PM -0400, Matthew Treinish wrote: > I fully understood the proposal but I still think you're optimizing for the > wrong thing. We have a community process for doing backports and maintaining > released versions of OpenStack code. The fundamental problem here is

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:39:55AM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-08-09 15:56:57 -0700 (-0700), Mike Perez wrote: > > As others have said and as being a Cinder stable core myself, the status-quo > > and this proposal itself are terrible practices because there is no testing > > behind it,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:28:52PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > . > > > > > > Mike, you must have left the midcycle by the time this topic came > > > up. On the issue of out-of-tree drivers, I specifically offered

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 2016-08-09 15:56:57 -0700 (-0700), Mike Perez wrote: > As others have said and as being a Cinder stable core myself, the status-quo > and this proposal itself are terrible practices because there is no testing > behind it, thereby it not being up to the community QA standards set. [...] In

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > . > > > > Mike, you must have left the midcycle by the time this topic came > > up. On the issue of out-of-tree drivers, I specifically offered this > > proposal (a community managed mechanism for distributing driver >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

. > > Mike, you must have left the midcycle by the time this topic came > up. On the issue of out-of-tree drivers, I specifically offered this > proposal (a community managed mechanism for distributing driver > bugfix backports) as an compromise alternative to try to address the > needs of both

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/09/2016 06:56 PM, Mike Perez wrote: On 10:31 Aug 06, Sean McGinnis wrote: I'm open and welcome to any feedback on this. Unless there are any major concerns raised, I will at least instruct any Cinder stable cores to start allowing these bugfix patches through past the security only

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 03:56:57PM -0700, Mike Perez wrote: > If you want to change that, work with the stable team on the various options > provided. This tangent of people whining on the mailing list and in > #openstack-cinder is not going to accomplish anything. That's what we're doing here

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/09/2016 05:45 PM, Mike Perez wrote: On 19:40 Aug 08, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish wrote: This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we don't do this. When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 10:31 Aug 06, Sean McGinnis wrote: > I'm open and welcome to any feedback on this. Unless there are any major > concerns raised, I will at least instruct any Cinder stable cores to > start allowing these bugfix patches through past the security only > phase. As others have said and as being a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 19:40 Aug 08, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > > > > This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we > > don't do > > this. When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci > > against >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/09/2016 02:10 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: The best example of why this is good is Linux. If you tell the Linux people to take their drivers out of the tree I can guarantee you they'll laugh you out of the room. The reasons for their stance are many and I won't recount them here (unless

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/09/2016 11:52 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Walter A. Boring IV wrote: On 08/08/2016 02:28 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish wrote: Ignoring all that, this

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/09/2016 03:01 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Walter A. Boring IV wrote: I think "currently active stable branches" is key there. These branches would no longer be "currently active". They would get an EOL tag when it reaches the end of the support phases. We just

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 09/08/2016 19:58, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > >> On 08/08/2016 02:28 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: >>> Duncan Thomas wrote: >>> On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish wrote: Ignoring

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Walter A. Boring IV wrote: I think "currently active stable branches" is key there. These branches would no longer be "currently active". They would get an EOL tag when it reaches the end of the support phases. We just wouldn't delete the branch. This argument comes up

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Walter A. Boring IV wrote: On 08/08/2016 02:28 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish wrote: Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/08/2016 02:28 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish wrote: Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in OpenStack. We don't turn off entire classes of testing

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

I think "currently active stable branches" is key there. These branches would no longer be "currently active". They would get an EOL tag when it reaches the end of the support phases. We just wouldn't delete the branch. This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish wrote: Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in OpenStack. We don't turn off entire classes of testing we have so we can land patches, that's just a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish wrote: > Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in > OpenStack. > We don't turn off entire classes of testing we have so we can land patches, > that's just a recipe for disaster. > But is it more of a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 07:40:56PM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > > > > This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we > > don't do > > this. When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/08/2016 12:36 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-08-08 13:03:51 +0200 (+0200), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Sean McGinnis wrote: [...] The suggestion was to just change our stable policy in regards to driver bugfix backports. No need to create and maintain more

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/08/2016 12:40 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish > wrote: This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we don't do this. When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

> Ok, to turn the question around, we (the cinder team) have recognised a > definite and strong need to have somewhere for vendors to share patches on > versions of Cinder older than the stable branch policy allows. > > Given this need, what are our options? > > 1. We could do all this outside

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we > don't do > this. When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci > against > it goes away. This means devstack support, job

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 2016-08-08 13:03:51 +0200 (+0200), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Sean McGinnis wrote: [...] > > The suggestion was to just change our stable policy in regards to driver > > bugfix backports. No need to create and maintain more branches. No need > > to set up gate jobs and

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >