Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver
Hi Trinath, I think the vendor company has many experts to review their codes. They can do it well. But I still have some comments inline. Germy On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:42 PM, trinath.soman...@freescale.com trinath.soman...@freescale.com wrote: Though Code reviews for vendor code takes more time, I feel it must go through Core reviews. Since, Vendors might submit the code that is working fine within their third party CI environment but the Code review make it more efficient with respect to the coding standards followed in the community. Also, for all the vendor plugins/drivers the code reviews (+1s and +2s) give a feedback on the quality they must be in to be with Neutron. I think the quality of a software mainly lies on developers, otherwise reviewers will be very very busy. We suppose that all core members reviewed your plugin and gave feedback many +, so can you guarantee the plugin high quality? even no BUGs? I think only the vendor, cooperating with customer and providing plugin and driver, can and must guarantee the quality. But those *private* releases only exist in vendor's disk and running in customer's machine. It cannot be updated to community because of approving waiting, because of not efficient enough, because of the coding standards, But one suggestion I want to put forward, when an -1 or -2 is given to the code, Reviewers might give a brief comment on why this was given, what might be preferred solution and Is there any reference implementation that can be considered for the code in review to move away from these errors. This can help the developers. If core members prefer Cisco's implementation, all the other vendors follow it? Why different plugins? Only one is enough. Of course, this is a very extreme assumption. We just discuss a problem. -- Trinath Somanchi - B39208 trinath.soman...@freescale.com | extn: 4048 ___ 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][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver
Hi Salvatore, Thanks for your hyperlink. It's really a monster thread that contains everyone's opinion. But it's useful to me. So, Before we focus on the Neutron core itself, we should firstly release a suite standardized APIs and a framework for vendors' codes. About this job, I think most of it is already OK. We have 20+ monolithic plugins following NB API and plugin framework. We need publish an API doc for internal interface(I prefer to call it SB API, stand on the Neutron core's point to consider, vendors' codes do not belong to core.) and other things unsuitable now. In my opinion, the Neutron core's main responsibility is data model and DB, schedule and dispatch, API and validation, framework and workflow. Some more comments inline. This is a very important discussion - very closely related to the one going on in this other thread http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/045768.html . Unfortunately it is also a discussion that tends to easily fragment and move in a thousand different directions. A few months ago I was too of the opinion that vendor plugins and drivers were the main reason of unnecessary load for the core team. I still think that they're an unnecessary heavy load, but I reckon the problem does not really lies with open source versus vendor code. It lies in matching people's competencies with subsystems and proper interface across them - as already pointed out in this thread. Yes, it's really important. I have some more comments inline, but unless growing another monster thread I'd rather start a different, cross-project discussion (which will hopefully not become just a cross-project monster thread!) Salvatore On 15 September 2014 08:29, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously, to a vendor's plugin/driver, the most important thing is API.Yes? NB API for a monolithic plugin or a service plugin and SB API for a service driver or agent, even MD. That's the basic. Now we have released a set of NB APIs with relative stability. The SB APIs' standardization are needed. The internal interface between the API and the plugins is standardized at the moment through use of classes like [1]. A similar interface exists for ML2 drivers [2]. To the monolithic plugins, [1] is useful. Vendors can implement those APIs and keep their codes locally. At the moment the dispatch of an API call to the plugin or from a plugin to a ML2 driver is purely a local call so these interfaces are working fairly well at the moment. I don't know yet however whether they will be sufficient in case plugins are split into different repos. ML2 Driver maintainers have however been warned in the past that the driver interface is to be considered internal and can be changed at any time. This does not apply to the plugin interface which has been conceived in this way to facilitate the development of out of tree plugins. Indeed, it's difficult to split MDs from ML2 plugin framework. I think it need some adaption. On the other hand, if by SB interfaces you are referring to the RPC interfaces for communicating between the servers and the various plugin, I would say that they should be considered internal at the moment. [1] https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/neutron_plugin_base_v2.py#L28 [2] https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/plugins/ml2/driver_api.py Some comments inline. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: So my suggestion is remove all vendors' plugins and drivers except opensource as built-in. Yes, I think this is currently the view held by the PTL (Kyle) and some of the other cores so what you're suggesting will definitely come up at the summit. Good! The discussion however will not be that different from the one we're seeing on that huge thread on splitting out drivers, which has become in my opinion a frankenthread. Nevertheless, that thread points out that this is far from being merely a neutron topic (despite neutron being the project with the highest number of drivers and plugins). Why do we need a different repo to store vendors' codes? That's not the community business. I think only a proper architecture and normal NBSB API can bring a clear separation between plugins(or drivers) and core code, not a different repo. The problem is that that architecture won't stay stable if there is no shared community plugin depending on its stability. Let me ask you the inverse question. Why do you think the reference driver should stay in the core repo? A separate repo won't have an impact on what is packaged and released so it should have no impact on user experience, complete versions, providing code examples, or developing new features. In fact, it will likely help with the last two because it will provide a clear delineation between what a plugin is responsible for vs. what the core API is responsible for. And, because new cores can be added faster to the
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver
+1 I don't think it will be seen as punitive. Vendors can write their plugins or drivers when a deal occurs and they do not need to submit code to community and wait for approving. Being a third party vendor, i do not think this is punitive. OpenStack has already established through processes like cert tests via tempest, external CI, etc. However, waiting for months for reviews and some more days for next round of reviews is really disturbing. Vendor plugins can always always provide repository links, cert tests, external CI logs, pep8 logs, flake8 logs, code coverage stats etc. to confirm if they are abiding by the OpenStack processes. Regards, Amit *CloudByte Inc.* http://www.cloudbyte.com/ On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Salvatore, Thanks for your hyperlink. It's really a monster thread that contains everyone's opinion. But it's useful to me. So, Before we focus on the Neutron core itself, we should firstly release a suite standardized APIs and a framework for vendors' codes. About this job, I think most of it is already OK. We have 20+ monolithic plugins following NB API and plugin framework. We need publish an API doc for internal interface(I prefer to call it SB API, stand on the Neutron core's point to consider, vendors' codes do not belong to core.) and other things unsuitable now. In my opinion, the Neutron core's main responsibility is data model and DB, schedule and dispatch, API and validation, framework and workflow. Some more comments inline. This is a very important discussion - very closely related to the one going on in this other thread http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/045768.html . Unfortunately it is also a discussion that tends to easily fragment and move in a thousand different directions. A few months ago I was too of the opinion that vendor plugins and drivers were the main reason of unnecessary load for the core team. I still think that they're an unnecessary heavy load, but I reckon the problem does not really lies with open source versus vendor code. It lies in matching people's competencies with subsystems and proper interface across them - as already pointed out in this thread. Yes, it's really important. I have some more comments inline, but unless growing another monster thread I'd rather start a different, cross-project discussion (which will hopefully not become just a cross-project monster thread!) Salvatore On 15 September 2014 08:29, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously, to a vendor's plugin/driver, the most important thing is API.Yes? NB API for a monolithic plugin or a service plugin and SB API for a service driver or agent, even MD. That's the basic. Now we have released a set of NB APIs with relative stability. The SB APIs' standardization are needed. The internal interface between the API and the plugins is standardized at the moment through use of classes like [1]. A similar interface exists for ML2 drivers [2]. To the monolithic plugins, [1] is useful. Vendors can implement those APIs and keep their codes locally. At the moment the dispatch of an API call to the plugin or from a plugin to a ML2 driver is purely a local call so these interfaces are working fairly well at the moment. I don't know yet however whether they will be sufficient in case plugins are split into different repos. ML2 Driver maintainers have however been warned in the past that the driver interface is to be considered internal and can be changed at any time. This does not apply to the plugin interface which has been conceived in this way to facilitate the development of out of tree plugins. Indeed, it's difficult to split MDs from ML2 plugin framework. I think it need some adaption. On the other hand, if by SB interfaces you are referring to the RPC interfaces for communicating between the servers and the various plugin, I would say that they should be considered internal at the moment. [1] https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/neutron_plugin_base_v2.py#L28 [2] https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/plugins/ml2/driver_api.py Some comments inline. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: So my suggestion is remove all vendors' plugins and drivers except opensource as built-in. Yes, I think this is currently the view held by the PTL (Kyle) and some of the other cores so what you're suggesting will definitely come up at the summit. Good! The discussion however will not be that different from the one we're seeing on that huge thread on splitting out drivers, which has become in my opinion a frankenthread. Nevertheless, that thread points out that this is far from being merely a neutron topic (despite neutron being the project with the highest number of drivers and plugins). Why do we need a different repo to store vendors' codes?
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver
Though Code reviews for vendor code takes more time, I feel it must go through Core reviews. Since, Vendors might submit the code that is working fine within their third party CI environment but the Code review make it more efficient with respect to the coding standards followed in the community. Also, for all the vendor plugins/drivers the code reviews (+1s and +2s) give a feedback on the quality they must be in to be with Neutron. But one suggestion I want to put forward, when an -1 or -2 is given to the code, Reviewers might give a brief comment on why this was given, what might be preferred solution and Is there any reference implementation that can be considered for the code in review to move away from these errors. This can help the developers. -- Trinath Somanchi - B39208 trinath.soman...@freescale.com | extn: 4048 From: Amit Das [mailto:amit@cloudbyte.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:01 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: tanny...@huawei.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver +1 I don't think it will be seen as punitive. Vendors can write their plugins or drivers when a deal occurs and they do not need to submit code to community and wait for approving. Being a third party vendor, i do not think this is punitive. OpenStack has already established through processes like cert tests via tempest, external CI, etc. However, waiting for months for reviews and some more days for next round of reviews is really disturbing. Vendor plugins can always always provide repository links, cert tests, external CI logs, pep8 logs, flake8 logs, code coverage stats etc. to confirm if they are abiding by the OpenStack processes. Regards, Amit CloudByte Inc.http://www.cloudbyte.com/ On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.commailto:germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Salvatore, Thanks for your hyperlink. It's really a monster thread that contains everyone's opinion. But it's useful to me. So, Before we focus on the Neutron core itself, we should firstly release a suite standardized APIs and a framework for vendors' codes. About this job, I think most of it is already OK. We have 20+ monolithic plugins following NB API and plugin framework. We need publish an API doc for internal interface(I prefer to call it SB API, stand on the Neutron core's point to consider, vendors' codes do not belong to core.) and other things unsuitable now. In my opinion, the Neutron core's main responsibility is data model and DB, schedule and dispatch, API and validation, framework and workflow. Some more comments inline. This is a very important discussion - very closely related to the one going on in this other thread http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/045768.html. Unfortunately it is also a discussion that tends to easily fragment and move in a thousand different directions. A few months ago I was too of the opinion that vendor plugins and drivers were the main reason of unnecessary load for the core team. I still think that they're an unnecessary heavy load, but I reckon the problem does not really lies with open source versus vendor code. It lies in matching people's competencies with subsystems and proper interface across them - as already pointed out in this thread. Yes, it's really important. I have some more comments inline, but unless growing another monster thread I'd rather start a different, cross-project discussion (which will hopefully not become just a cross-project monster thread!) Salvatore On 15 September 2014 08:29, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.commailto:germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously, to a vendor's plugin/driver, the most important thing is API.Yes? NB API for a monolithic plugin or a service plugin and SB API for a service driver or agent, even MD. That's the basic. Now we have released a set of NB APIs with relative stability. The SB APIs' standardization are needed. The internal interface between the API and the plugins is standardized at the moment through use of classes like [1]. A similar interface exists for ML2 drivers [2]. To the monolithic plugins, [1] is useful. Vendors can implement those APIs and keep their codes locally. At the moment the dispatch of an API call to the plugin or from a plugin to a ML2 driver is purely a local call so these interfaces are working fairly well at the moment. I don't know yet however whether they will be sufficient in case plugins are split into different repos. ML2 Driver maintainers have however been warned in the past that the driver interface is to be considered internal and can be changed at any time. This does not apply to the plugin interface which has been conceived in this way to facilitate the development of out of tree plugins. Indeed, it's difficult to split MDs from ML2 plugin framework. I think it need some adaption
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver
Obviously, to a vendor's plugin/driver, the most important thing is API.Yes? NB API for a monolithic plugin or a service plugin and SB API for a service driver or agent, even MD. That's the basic. Now we have released a set of NB APIs with relative stability. The SB APIs' standardization are needed. Some comments inline. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: So my suggestion is remove all vendors' plugins and drivers except opensource as built-in. Yes, I think this is currently the view held by the PTL (Kyle) and some of the other cores so what you're suggesting will definitely come up at the summit. Good! Why do we need a different repo to store vendors' codes? That's not the community business. I think only a proper architecture and normal NBSB API can bring a clear separation between plugins(or drivers) and core code, not a different repo. The problem is that that architecture won't stay stable if there is no shared community plugin depending on its stability. Let me ask you the inverse question. Why do you think the reference driver should stay in the core repo? A separate repo won't have an impact on what is packaged and released so it should have no impact on user experience, complete versions, providing code examples, or developing new features. In fact, it will likely help with the last two because it will provide a clear delineation between what a plugin is responsible for vs. what the core API is responsible for. And, because new cores can be added faster to the open source plugins repo due to a smaller code base to learn, it will help with developing new features by reducing reviewer load. OK, the key point is that vendors' code should be kept by themselves NOT by the community. But in the same time, the community should provide some open source reference as standard examples for those new cores and vendors. U are right, A separate repo won't have an impact on what is packaged and released. The open source can stays in the core repo or a different one. In any case, we need them there for referencing and version releasing. Any vendor would not maintain the open source codes, the community only. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe I missed something, but what's the solution? There isn't one yet. That's why it's going to be discussed at the summit. So my suggestion is remove all vendors' plugins and drivers except opensource as built-in. By leaving open source plugins and drivers in the tree , we can resolve such problems: 1)release a workable and COMPLETE version 2)user experience(especially for beginners) 3)provide code example to learn for new contributors and vendors 4)develop and verify new features I think we should release a workable version. Definitely. But that doesn't have anything to do with it living in the same repository. By putting it in a different repo, it provides smaller code bases to learn for new contributors wanting to become a core developer in addition to a clear separation between plugins and core code. Why do we need a different repo to store vendors' codes? That's not the community business. I think only a proper architecture and normal NBSB API can bring a clear separation between plugins(or drivers) and core code, not a different repo. Of course, if the community provides a wiki page for vendors to add hyperlink of their codes, I think it's perfect. Besides of user experience, the open source drivers are also used for developing and verifying new features, even small-scale case. Sure, but this also isn't affected by the code being in a separate repo. See comments above. The community should and just need focus on the Neutron core and provide framework for vendors' devices. I agree, but without the open source drivers being separated as well, it's very difficult for the framework for external drivers to be stable enough to be useful. Architecture and API. The community should ensure core and API stable enough and high quality. Vendors for external drivers. Who provides, who maintains(including development, storage, distribution, quality, etc). On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: Some comments inline. BR, Germy On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: This has been brought up several times already and I believe is going to be discussed at the Kilo summit. Maybe I missed something, but what's the solution? I agree that reviewing third party patches eats community time. However, claiming that the community pays 46% of it's energy to maintain vendor-specific code doesn't make any sense. LOC in the repo has very little to do with ongoing required maintenance. Assuming the APIs for the plugins stay consistent, there should be few
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver
This is a very important discussion - very closely related to the one going on in this other thread http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/045768.html . Unfortunately it is also a discussion that tends to easily fragment and move in a thousand different directions. A few months ago I was too of the opinion that vendor plugins and drivers were the main reason of unnecessary load for the core team. I still think that they're an unnecessary heavy load, but I reckon the problem does not really lies with open source versus vendor code. It lies in matching people's competencies with subsystems and proper interface across them - as already pointed out in this thread. I have some more comments inline, but unless growing another monster thread I'd rather start a different, cross-project discussion (which will hopefully not become just a cross-project monster thread!) Salvatore On 15 September 2014 08:29, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously, to a vendor's plugin/driver, the most important thing is API.Yes? NB API for a monolithic plugin or a service plugin and SB API for a service driver or agent, even MD. That's the basic. Now we have released a set of NB APIs with relative stability. The SB APIs' standardization are needed. The internal interface between the API and the plugins is standardized at the moment through use of classes like [1]. A similar interface exists for ML2 drivers [2]. At the moment the dispatch of an API call to the plugin or from a plugin to a ML2 driver is purely a local call so these interfaces are working fairly well at the moment. I don't know yet however whether they will be sufficient in case plugins are split into different repos. ML2 Driver maintainers have however been warned in the past that the driver interface is to be considered internal and can be changed at any time. This does not apply to the plugin interface which has been conceived in this way to facilitate the development of out of tree plugins. On the other hand, if by SB interfaces you are referring to the RPC interfaces for communicating between the servers and the various plugin, I would say that they should be considered internal at the moment. [1] https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/neutron_plugin_base_v2.py#L28 [2] https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/plugins/ml2/driver_api.py Some comments inline. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: So my suggestion is remove all vendors' plugins and drivers except opensource as built-in. Yes, I think this is currently the view held by the PTL (Kyle) and some of the other cores so what you're suggesting will definitely come up at the summit. Good! The discussion however will not be that different from the one we're seeing on that huge thread on splitting out drivers, which has become in my opinion a frankenthread. Nevertheless, that thread points out that this is far from being merely a neutron topic (despite neutron being the project with the highest number of drivers and plugins). Why do we need a different repo to store vendors' codes? That's not the community business. I think only a proper architecture and normal NBSB API can bring a clear separation between plugins(or drivers) and core code, not a different repo. The problem is that that architecture won't stay stable if there is no shared community plugin depending on its stability. Let me ask you the inverse question. Why do you think the reference driver should stay in the core repo? A separate repo won't have an impact on what is packaged and released so it should have no impact on user experience, complete versions, providing code examples, or developing new features. In fact, it will likely help with the last two because it will provide a clear delineation between what a plugin is responsible for vs. what the core API is responsible for. And, because new cores can be added faster to the open source plugins repo due to a smaller code base to learn, it will help with developing new features by reducing reviewer load. OK, the key point is that vendors' code should be kept by themselves NOT by the community. But in the same time, the community should provide some open source reference as standard examples for those new cores and vendors. U are right, A separate repo won't have an impact on what is packaged and released. The open source can stays in the core repo or a different one. In any case, we need them there for referencing and version releasing. Any vendor would not maintain the open source codes, the community only. I think that we are probably focusing too much on the separate repo issue, which is probably being seen as punitive for drivers and plugins. The separate repo would be just a possible tool for achieving the goal of reducing the review load imposed by drivers on the core team while keeping them part of the integrated release.
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver
Hi, While keeping focused on defining proper approach to deal with Neutron third vendors’ plugin and driver, we also need to provide solution for complimentary critical piece of code maintained in the Nova code base. Introducing new vif_type by neutron L2 Plugin/Driver, requires adding vif plugging support at Nova side. I think it is very important to enable virt driver extensibility to support out of the tree/future vif_types. If the direction is to keep vendor plugins/drivers external to Neutron core, it seems reasonable to impose same policy on the Nova side. BR, Irena From: Kevin Benton [mailto:blak...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 12:19 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: tanny...@huawei.com Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver So my suggestion is remove all vendors' plugins and drivers except opensource as built-in. Yes, I think this is currently the view held by the PTL (Kyle) and some of the other cores so what you're suggesting will definitely come up at the summit. Why do we need a different repo to store vendors' codes? That's not the community business. I think only a proper architecture and normal NBSB API can bring a clear separation between plugins(or drivers) and core code, not a different repo. The problem is that that architecture won't stay stable if there is no shared community plugin depending on its stability. Let me ask you the inverse question. Why do you think the reference driver should stay in the core repo? A separate repo won't have an impact on what is packaged and released so it should have no impact on user experience, complete versions, providing code examples, or developing new features. In fact, it will likely help with the last two because it will provide a clear delineation between what a plugin is responsible for vs. what the core API is responsible for. And, because new cores can be added faster to the open source plugins repo due to a smaller code base to learn, it will help with developing new features by reducing reviewer load. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.commailto:germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.commailto:blak...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe I missed something, but what's the solution? There isn't one yet. That's why it's going to be discussed at the summit. So my suggestion is remove all vendors' plugins and drivers except opensource as built-in. By leaving open source plugins and drivers in the tree , we can resolve such problems: 1)release a workable and COMPLETE version 2)user experience(especially for beginners) 3)provide code example to learn for new contributors and vendors 4)develop and verify new features I think we should release a workable version. Definitely. But that doesn't have anything to do with it living in the same repository. By putting it in a different repo, it provides smaller code bases to learn for new contributors wanting to become a core developer in addition to a clear separation between plugins and core code. Why do we need a different repo to store vendors' codes? That's not the community business. I think only a proper architecture and normal NBSB API can bring a clear separation between plugins(or drivers) and core code, not a different repo. Of course, if the community provides a wiki page for vendors to add hyperlink of their codes, I think it's perfect. Besides of user experience, the open source drivers are also used for developing and verifying new features, even small-scale case. Sure, but this also isn't affected by the code being in a separate repo. See comments above. The community should and just need focus on the Neutron core and provide framework for vendors' devices. I agree, but without the open source drivers being separated as well, it's very difficult for the framework for external drivers to be stable enough to be useful. Architecture and API. The community should ensure core and API stable enough and high quality. Vendors for external drivers. Who provides, who maintains(including development, storage, distribution, quality, etc). On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.commailto:germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: Some comments inline. BR, Germy On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.commailto:blak...@gmail.com wrote: This has been brought up several times already and I believe is going to be discussed at the Kilo summit. Maybe I missed something, but what's the solution? I agree that reviewing third party patches eats community time. However, claiming that the community pays 46% of it's energy to maintain vendor-specific code doesn't make any sense. LOC in the repo has very little to do with ongoing required maintenance. Assuming the APIs for the plugins stay consistent, there should be few
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe I missed something, but what's the solution? There isn't one yet. That's why it's going to be discussed at the summit. So my suggestion is remove all vendors' plugins and drivers except opensource as built-in. By leaving open source plugins and drivers in the tree , we can resolve such problems: 1)release a workable and COMPLETE version 2)user experience(especially for beginners) 3)provide code example to learn for new contributors and vendors 4)develop and verify new features I think we should release a workable version. Definitely. But that doesn't have anything to do with it living in the same repository. By putting it in a different repo, it provides smaller code bases to learn for new contributors wanting to become a core developer in addition to a clear separation between plugins and core code. Why do we need a different repo to store vendors' codes? That's not the community business. I think only a proper architecture and normal NBSB API can bring a clear separation between plugins(or drivers) and core code, not a different repo. Of course, if the community provides a wiki page for vendors to add hyperlink of their codes, I think it's perfect. Besides of user experience, the open source drivers are also used for developing and verifying new features, even small-scale case. Sure, but this also isn't affected by the code being in a separate repo. See comments above. The community should and just need focus on the Neutron core and provide framework for vendors' devices. I agree, but without the open source drivers being separated as well, it's very difficult for the framework for external drivers to be stable enough to be useful. Architecture and API. The community should ensure core and API stable enough and high quality. Vendors for external drivers. Who provides, who maintains(including development, storage, distribution, quality, etc). On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: Some comments inline. BR, Germy On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: This has been brought up several times already and I believe is going to be discussed at the Kilo summit. Maybe I missed something, but what's the solution? I agree that reviewing third party patches eats community time. However, claiming that the community pays 46% of it's energy to maintain vendor-specific code doesn't make any sense. LOC in the repo has very little to do with ongoing required maintenance. Assuming the APIs for the plugins stay consistent, there should be few 'maintenance' changes required to a plugin once it's in the tree. If there are that many changes to plugins just to keep them operational, that means Neutron is far too unstable to support drivers living outside of the tree anyway. Yes, you are right. Neutron is far too unstable to support drivers living outside of the tree anyway. So I think this is really our important point. The community should focus on standardizing NBSB API, introducing and improving new features NOT wasting energy to introduce and maintain vendor-specific codes. On a related note, if we are going to pull plugins/drivers out of Neutron, I think all of them should be removed, including the OVS and LinuxBridge ones. There is no reason for them to be there if Neutron has stable enough internal APIs to eject the 3rd party plugins from the repo. They should be able to live in a separate neutron-opensource-drivers repo or something along those lines. This will free up significant amounts of developer/reviewer cycles for neutron to work on the API refactor, task based workflows, performance improvements for the DB operations, etc. I think we should release a workable version. User can experience the functions powered by built-in components. And they can replace them with the release of those vendors who cooperate with them. The community should not work for vendor's codes. If the open source drivers stay in the tree and the others are removed, there is little incentive to keep the internal APIs stable and 3rd party drivers sitting outside of the tree will break on every refactor or data structure change. If that's the way we want to treat external driver developers, let's be explicit about it and just post warnings that 3rd party drivers can break at any point and that the onus is on the external developers to learn what changed an react to it. At some point they will stop bothering with Neutron completely in their deployments and mimic its public API. Besides of user experience, the open source drivers are also used for developing and verifying new features, even small-scale case. A clear separation of the open source drivers/plugins and core Neutron would give a much better model for 3rd party driver developers to follow and would enforce a stable internal API in the
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver
So my suggestion is remove all vendors' plugins and drivers except opensource as built-in. Yes, I think this is currently the view held by the PTL (Kyle) and some of the other cores so what you're suggesting will definitely come up at the summit. Why do we need a different repo to store vendors' codes? That's not the community business. I think only a proper architecture and normal NBSB API can bring a clear separation between plugins(or drivers) and core code, not a different repo. The problem is that that architecture won't stay stable if there is no shared community plugin depending on its stability. Let me ask you the inverse question. Why do you think the reference driver should stay in the core repo? A separate repo won't have an impact on what is packaged and released so it should have no impact on user experience, complete versions, providing code examples, or developing new features. In fact, it will likely help with the last two because it will provide a clear delineation between what a plugin is responsible for vs. what the core API is responsible for. And, because new cores can be added faster to the open source plugins repo due to a smaller code base to learn, it will help with developing new features by reducing reviewer load. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe I missed something, but what's the solution? There isn't one yet. That's why it's going to be discussed at the summit. So my suggestion is remove all vendors' plugins and drivers except opensource as built-in. By leaving open source plugins and drivers in the tree , we can resolve such problems: 1)release a workable and COMPLETE version 2)user experience(especially for beginners) 3)provide code example to learn for new contributors and vendors 4)develop and verify new features I think we should release a workable version. Definitely. But that doesn't have anything to do with it living in the same repository. By putting it in a different repo, it provides smaller code bases to learn for new contributors wanting to become a core developer in addition to a clear separation between plugins and core code. Why do we need a different repo to store vendors' codes? That's not the community business. I think only a proper architecture and normal NBSB API can bring a clear separation between plugins(or drivers) and core code, not a different repo. Of course, if the community provides a wiki page for vendors to add hyperlink of their codes, I think it's perfect. Besides of user experience, the open source drivers are also used for developing and verifying new features, even small-scale case. Sure, but this also isn't affected by the code being in a separate repo. See comments above. The community should and just need focus on the Neutron core and provide framework for vendors' devices. I agree, but without the open source drivers being separated as well, it's very difficult for the framework for external drivers to be stable enough to be useful. Architecture and API. The community should ensure core and API stable enough and high quality. Vendors for external drivers. Who provides, who maintains(including development, storage, distribution, quality, etc). On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: Some comments inline. BR, Germy On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote: This has been brought up several times already and I believe is going to be discussed at the Kilo summit. Maybe I missed something, but what's the solution? I agree that reviewing third party patches eats community time. However, claiming that the community pays 46% of it's energy to maintain vendor-specific code doesn't make any sense. LOC in the repo has very little to do with ongoing required maintenance. Assuming the APIs for the plugins stay consistent, there should be few 'maintenance' changes required to a plugin once it's in the tree. If there are that many changes to plugins just to keep them operational, that means Neutron is far too unstable to support drivers living outside of the tree anyway. Yes, you are right. Neutron is far too unstable to support drivers living outside of the tree anyway. So I think this is really our important point. The community should focus on standardizing NBSB API, introducing and improving new features NOT wasting energy to introduce and maintain vendor-specific codes. On a related note, if we are going to pull plugins/drivers out of Neutron, I think all of them should be removed, including the OVS and LinuxBridge ones. There is no reason for them to be there if Neutron has stable enough internal APIs to eject the 3rd party plugins from the repo. They should be able to live in a separate neutron-opensource-drivers repo or something along those lines. This
[openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver
Hi stackers, According to my statistics(J2), the LOC of vendors' plugin and driver is about 102K, while the whole under neutron is 220K. That is to say the community has paid and is paying over 46% energy to maintain vendors' code. If we take mails, bugs, BPs and so on into consideration, this percentage will be more. Most of these codes are just plugins and drivers implementing almost the same functions. Every vendor submits a plugin, and the community only do the same thing, repeat and repeat. Meaningless.I think it's time to move them out. Let's focus on improving those exist but still weak features, on introducing important and interesting new features. My suggestions now: 1.monopolized plugins 1)The community only standards NB API and keeps built-ins, such as ML2, OVS and Linux bridge plugins. 2)Vendors maintain their plugins locally. 3)Users get neutron from community and plugin from some vendor on demand. 2.service plugins 1)The community standards SB API and keeps open source driver(iptables, openSwan and etc.) as built-in. 2)Vendors only provide drivers not plugin. And those drivers also need not deliver to community. 3)Like above, Users can get code on demand from vendors or just use open source. 3.ML2 plugin 1)Like service and monopolized plugin, the community just keep open source implementations as built-in. 2)L2-population should be kept. I am very happy to discuss this further. vendors' code stat. table(excluding built-in plugins and drivers) Path Size neutron-master\neutron\plugins\63170 neutron-master\neutron\services\ 4052 neutron-master\neutron\tests\ 35756 BR, Germy ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][Architecture]Suggestions for the third vendors' plugin and driver
This has been brought up several times already and I believe is going to be discussed at the Kilo summit. I agree that reviewing third party patches eats community time. However, claiming that the community pays 46% of it's energy to maintain vendor-specific code doesn't make any sense. LOC in the repo has very little to do with ongoing required maintenance. Assuming the APIs for the plugins stay consistent, there should be few 'maintenance' changes required to a plugin once it's in the tree. If there are that many changes to plugins just to keep them operational, that means Neutron is far too unstable to support drivers living outside of the tree anyway. On a related note, if we are going to pull plugins/drivers out of Neutron, I think all of them should be removed, including the OVS and LinuxBridge ones. There is no reason for them to be there if Neutron has stable enough internal APIs to eject the 3rd party plugins from the repo. They should be able to live in a separate neutron-opensource-drivers repo or something along those lines. This will free up significant amounts of developer/reviewer cycles for neutron to work on the API refactor, task based workflows, performance improvements for the DB operations, etc. If the open source drivers stay in the tree and the others are removed, there is little incentive to keep the internal APIs stable and 3rd party drivers sitting outside of the tree will break on every refactor or data structure change. If that's the way we want to treat external driver developers, let's be explicit about it and just post warnings that 3rd party drivers can break at any point and that the onus is on the external developers to learn what changed an react to it. At some point they will stop bothering with Neutron completely in their deployments and mimic its public API. A clear separation of the open source drivers/plugins and core Neutron would give a much better model for 3rd party driver developers to follow and would enforce a stable internal API in the Neutron core. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Germy Lure germy.l...@gmail.com wrote: Hi stackers, According to my statistics(J2), the LOC of vendors' plugin and driver is about 102K, while the whole under neutron is 220K. That is to say the community has paid and is paying over 46% energy to maintain vendors' code. If we take mails, bugs, BPs and so on into consideration, this percentage will be more. Most of these codes are just plugins and drivers implementing almost the same functions. Every vendor submits a plugin, and the community only do the same thing, repeat and repeat. Meaningless.I think it's time to move them out. Let's focus on improving those exist but still weak features, on introducing important and interesting new features. My suggestions now: 1.monopolized plugins 1)The community only standards NB API and keeps built-ins, such as ML2, OVS and Linux bridge plugins. 2)Vendors maintain their plugins locally. 3)Users get neutron from community and plugin from some vendor on demand. 2.service plugins 1)The community standards SB API and keeps open source driver(iptables, openSwan and etc.) as built-in. 2)Vendors only provide drivers not plugin. And those drivers also need not deliver to community. 3)Like above, Users can get code on demand from vendors or just use open source. 3.ML2 plugin 1)Like service and monopolized plugin, the community just keep open source implementations as built-in. 2)L2-population should be kept. I am very happy to discuss this further. vendors' code stat. table(excluding built-in plugins and drivers) Path Size neutron-master\neutron\plugins\63170 neutron-master\neutron\services\ 4052 neutron-master\neutron\tests\ 35756 BR, Germy ___ 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
