On 11 October 2013 15:41, Alessandro Pilotti
apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote:
Current reviews require:
+1 de facto driver X mantainer(s)
+2 core reviewer
+2A core reviewer
While with the proposed scenario we'd get to a way faster route:
+2 driver X mantainer
+2A another driver X
On Oct 15, 2013, at 18:14 , Duncan Thomas
duncan.tho...@gmail.commailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 October 2013 15:41, Alessandro Pilotti
apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.commailto:apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote:
Current reviews require:
+1 de facto driver X mantainer(s)
+2 core
On 11 October 2013 20:51, Rochelle.Grober rochelle.gro...@huawei.com wrote:
Proposed solution:
There have been a couple of solutions proposed. I’m presenting a
merged/hybrid solution that may work
· Create a new repository for the extra drivers:
o Keep kvm and Xenapi in the Nova
On 13 October 2013 00:19, Alessandro Pilotti
apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote:
If you don't like any of the options that this already long thread is
providing, I'm absolutely open to discuss any constructive idea. But please,
let's get out of this awful mess.
OpenStack is still a young
On Oct 15, 2013, at 19:18 , Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 13 October 2013 00:19, Alessandro Pilotti
apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote:
If you don't like any of the options that this already long thread is
providing, I'm absolutely open to discuss any constructive
On Oct 15, 2013, at 19:03 , Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11 October 2013 20:51, Rochelle.Grober rochelle.gro...@huawei.com wrote:
Proposed solution:
There have been a couple of solutions proposed. I’m presenting a
merged/hybrid solution that may work
·
To:OpenStack Development Mailing List
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org,
Date:10/15/2013 10:39 AM
Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
On Oct 15, 2013, at 18:14 , Duncan Thomas
duncan.tho
Joe Gordon wrote:
[...]
This sounds like a very myopic solution to the issue you originally
raised, and I don't think it will solve the underlying issues.
Taking a step back, you originally raised a concern about how we
prioritize reviews with the havana-rc-potential tag.
[...]
I'm with
On 14.10.2013, at 11:18, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
[...]
This sounds like a very myopic solution to the issue you originally
raised, and I don't think it will solve the underlying issues.
Taking a step back, you originally raised a concern about how
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:58:22 +
Alessandro Pilotti apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote:
As a an example we have a couple of critical bugs for Havana with
their fix already under review that nobody cared even to triage, let
alone review.
Anyone can join the nova-bugs team on launchpad
On 10/14/2013 04:10 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
[...]
This sounds like a very myopic solution to the issue you originally
raised, and I don't think it will solve the underlying issues.
Taking a step back, you originally raised a concern about how we
prioritize reviews with
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 23:12:26 +1300
Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
On 12 October 2013 21:35, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:27:54 -0700
Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
A fairly fundamental thing in SOA architectures - which we have
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:30:30 -0700
Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
If the idea is to gate with nova-extra-drivers this could lead to a
rather painful process to change the virt driver API. When all the
drivers are in the same tree all of them can be updated at the same
time as the
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 15:20:44 -0700
Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
Once again you raise the issue of bug triage and prioritization of
reviews (and blueprints), so help us fix that! This isn't a virt
driver only issue though.
The issues you originally raise are only incidentally
On Oct 13, 2013, at 14:54 , Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:30:30 -0700
Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
If the idea is to gate with nova-extra-drivers this could lead to a
rather painful process to change the virt driver API. When all the
drivers are
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:27:54 -0700
Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
Agreed, a stable virt driver API is not feasible or healthy at this
point, IMHO. However, it doesn't change that much as it is. I know
I'll be making changes to virt drivers in the coming cycle due to
objects and I have
If the idea is to gate with nova-extra-drivers this could lead to a
rather painful process to change the virt driver API. When all the
drivers are in the same tree all of them can be updated at the same
time as the infrastructure.
Right, and I think if we split those drivers out, then we do
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
If the idea is to gate with nova-extra-drivers this could lead to a
rather painful process to change the virt driver API. When all the
drivers are in the same tree all of them can be updated at the same
From the user perspective, splitting off the projects seems to be
focussing on the ease of commit compared to the final user
experience.
I think what you describe is specifically the desire that originally
spawned the thread: making the merging of changes to the hyper-v driver
faster by
to address this, I can arrange a
user representation in that session.
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Dan Smith [mailto:d...@danplanet.com]
Sent: 12 October 2013 18:31
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
If the idea is to gate
On 12.10.2013, at 20:22, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
From the user perspective, splitting off the projects seems to be
focussing on the ease of commit compared to the final user
experience.
I think what you describe is specifically the desire that originally
spawned the thread:
From: Alessandro Pilotti [apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com]
Sent: 12 October 2013 20:21
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
1) All the drivers will still be part of Nova.
2) One official project
4) Periodically, code from the new project(s) must be merged into Nova.
Only Nova core reviewers will have obviously +2a rights here.
I propose to do it on scheduled days before every milestone, differentiated
per driver to distribute the review effort (what about also having Nova core
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alessandro Pilotti
apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote:
On 12.10.2013, at 20:22, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
From the user perspective, splitting off the projects seems to be
focussing on the ease of commit compared to the final user
On 13.10.2013, at 01:26, Joe Gordon
joe.gord...@gmail.commailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alessandro Pilotti
apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.commailto:apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote:
On 12.10.2013, at 20:22, Dan Smith
On 13.10.2013, at 01:09, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
4) Periodically, code from the new project(s) must be merged into Nova.
Only Nova core reviewers will have obviously +2a rights here.
I propose to do it on scheduled days before every milestone, differentiated
per driver to
On 10/10/2013 08:43 PM, Tim Smith wrote:
snip
Again, I don't have any vested interest in this discussion, except that
I believe the concept of reviewer karma to be counter to both software
quality and openness. In this particular case it would seem that the
simplest solution to this problem
On Oct 11, 2013, at 14:15 , Sean Dague s...@dague.net
wrote:
On 10/10/2013 08:43 PM, Tim Smith wrote:
snip
Again, I don't have any vested interest in this discussion, except that
I believe the concept of reviewer karma to be counter to both software
quality and openness. In this particular
On 10/11/2013 09:02 AM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
OpenStack is organized differently: there are lots of separate projects
(Nova, Neutrom, Glance, etc) instead of a single one (which is a good thing),
but I believe that a similar approach can be applied. Specific contributors
can be
On Oct 11, 2013, at 17:17 , Russell Bryant
rbry...@redhat.commailto:rbry...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 10/11/2013 09:02 AM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
OpenStack is organized differently: there are lots of separate projects (Nova,
Neutrom, Glance, etc) instead of a single one (which is a good
On 10/11/2013 10:41 AM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
On Oct 11, 2013, at 17:17 , Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 10/11/2013 09:02 AM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
OpenStack is organized differently: there are lots of separate
projects (Nova, Neutrom,
-Original Message-
From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.com]
Sent: 11 October 2013 15:18
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
As a practical example for Nova: in our case that would simply include the
following subtrees
On Oct 11, 2013, at 18:02 , Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 10/11/2013 10:41 AM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
On Oct 11, 2013, at 17:17 , Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 10/11/2013 09:02 AM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
OpenStack is
We could either have a single repo:
openstack/nova-extra-drivers
This would be my preference for sure, just from the standpoint of
additional release complexity otherwise. I know it might complicate how
the core team works, but presumably we could get away with just having
driver
I think that all drivers that are officially supported must be
treated in the same way.
Well, we already have multiple classes of support due to the various
states of testing that the drivers have.
If we are going to split out drivers into a separate but still
official repository then we
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Bob Ball bob.b...@citrix.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.com]
Sent: 11 October 2013 15:18
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
As a practical
On Oct 11, 2013, at 18:36 , Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com
wrote:
I think that all drivers that are officially supported must be
treated in the same way.
Well, we already have multiple classes of support due to the various
states of testing that the drivers have.
If we are going to
15:18
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
As a practical example for Nova: in our case that would simply
include the
following subtrees: nova/virt/hyperv and nova
My only request here is that we can make sure that new driver
features can land for other drivers without necessarilky having them
implemented for libvirt/KVM first.
We've got lots of things supported by the XenAPI drivers that aren't
supported by libvirt, so I don't think this is a problem
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Alessandro Pilotti
apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote:
On Oct 11, 2013, at 14:15 , Sean Dague s...@dague.net
wrote:
On 10/10/2013 08:43 PM, Tim Smith wrote:
snip
Again, I don't have any vested interest in this discussion, except that
I believe the
N
Rochester, MN 55901-1407
United States
From: Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org,
Date: 10/11/2013 11:33 AM
Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
On 10/11/2013 12:04 PM, John Griffith wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9
...@redhat.commailto:rbry...@redhat.com]
Sent: 11 October 2013 15:18
To:
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
As a practical example for Nova: in our case that would simply include the
following subtrees: nova/virt/hyperv
Message-
From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com]
Sent: 11 October 2013 15:18
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
-
From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.comhttp://redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com]
Sent: 11 October 2013 15:18
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
On 10/11/2013 02:03 PM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
Talking about new community involvements, newcomers are getting very
frustrated to have to wait for weeks to get a meaningful review and I
cannot blame them if they don't want to get involved anymore after the
first patch!
This makes appear
On 10/11/2013 02:03 PM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
On Oct 11, 2013, at 19:29 , Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
mailto:rbry...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 10/11/2013 12:04 PM, John Griffith wrote:
[... snip ...]
Talking about new community involvements, newcomers are getting very
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:43 PM, David Kranz dkr...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/11/2013 02:03 PM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
On Oct 11, 2013, at 19:29 , Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 10/11/2013 12:04 PM, John Griffith wrote:
Umm... just to clarify the section below is NOT
Not to derail the current direction this thread is heading but my 2 cents
on the topic of moving drivers out of tree:
I share a lot of the same concerns that John Griffith pointed out. As a one
of the maintainers of the PowerVM driver in nova,
I view the official-ness of having the driver in tree
On 11.10.2013, at 22:58, Rochelle.Grober
rochelle.gro...@huawei.commailto:rochelle.gro...@huawei.com wrote:
Pardon me for cutting out most of the discussion. I’d like to summarize a bit
here and make a proposal.
Issues:
· Driver and Plugin writers for Nova (and other Core
On 10/11/2013 05:09 PM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
My suggestion is to bring this discussion to HK, possibly with a few beers
in front and sort it out :-)
Sounds like a good plan to me!
Thanks,
--
Russell Bryant
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
and fast.
--Rocky Grober
-Original Message-
From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:59 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
On 10/11/2013 05:09 PM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
My suggestion
Hi all,
As the Havana release date is approaching fast, I'm sending this email to sum
up the situation for pending bugs and reviews related to the Hyper-V
integration in OpenStack.
In the past weeks we diligently marked bugs that are related to Havana features
with the havana-rc-potential
On Oct 10, 2013, at 23:50 , Russell Bryant
rbry...@redhat.commailto:rbry...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 10/10/2013 02:20 PM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
Hi all,
As the Havana release date is approaching fast, I'm sending this email
to sum up the situation for pending bugs and reviews related to the
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Please understand that I only want to help here. Perhaps a good way for
you to get more review attention is get more karma in the dev community
by helping review other patches. It looks like you don't really review
@lists.openstack.org,
Date: 10/10/2013 07:48 PM
Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [Hyper-V] Havana status
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
wrote:
Please understand that I only want to help here. Perhaps a good way for
you to get more review attention is get more
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Alessandro Pilotti
apilo...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote:
Hi all,
As the Havana release date is approaching fast, I'm sending this email
to sum up the situation for pending bugs and reviews related to the Hyper-V
integration in OpenStack.
In the past
] [Hyper-V] Havana status
--
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Russell Bryant
*rbry...@redhat.com*rbry...@redhat.com
wrote:
Please understand that I only want to help here. Perhaps a good way for
you to get more review attention is get more karma in the dev
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Tim Smith tsm...@gridcentric.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.comwrote:
Please understand that I only want to help here. Perhaps a good way for
you to get more review attention is get more karma in the dev community
58 matches
Mail list logo
