Re: [openstack-dev] [brick] Status and plans for the brick shared volume code
John Griffith wrote: The code currently is and will be maintained in Cinder, and the Cinder team will sync changes across to Nova. The first order of business for Icehouse will be to get the library built up and usable, then convert over to using that so as to avoid the syncing issues. This may have been discussed before, but is there any reason to avoid the Oslo incubator for such a library ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [brick] Status and plans for the brick shared volume code
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote: John Griffith wrote: The code currently is and will be maintained in Cinder, and the Cinder team will sync changes across to Nova. The first order of business for Icehouse will be to get the library built up and usable, then convert over to using that so as to avoid the syncing issues. This may have been discussed before, but is there any reason to avoid the Oslo incubator for such a library ? Not really no, in fact that's always been a consideration ( https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/shared-block-storage-library) -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ 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] [brick] Status and plans for the brick shared volume code
On 09/05/2013 09:46 AM, John Griffith wrote: On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org mailto:thie...@openstack.org wrote: John Griffith wrote: The code currently is and will be maintained in Cinder, and the Cinder team will sync changes across to Nova. The first order of business for Icehouse will be to get the library built up and usable, then convert over to using that so as to avoid the syncing issues. This may have been discussed before, but is there any reason to avoid the Oslo incubator for such a library ? Not really no, in fact that's always been a consideration (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/shared-block-storage-library) I figured it just made sense from a team perspective to have Cinder maintain this. That's where the relevant domain expertise is. The mechanics would certainly be easier as far as syncing code, since it would be with the other code in the same situation. However, that's short term anyway. Hopefully the real library is out ASAP in Icehouse. Btw, these changes for Nova didn't make for the feature freeze. So, we will have to discuss whether an exception makes sense. The alternative is to just defer Nova's use of brick to Icehouse and when it's released as a library. -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
