Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler
On 4/3/15, 8:24 PM, Dugger, Donald D donald.d.dug...@intel.com wrote: The goal is not `splitting for the sake of splitting'. The goal is to have a separate scheduler that is ultimately usable by other projects inside OpenStack. Currently Cinder has its own filter based scheduler (duplicating scheduling code in 2 places seems silly), Neutron will need scheduling services, there are multiple places where a common scheduling service would be beneficial. + 1 -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Ed Leafe [mailto:e...@leafe.com] Sent: Friday, April 3, 2015 10:59 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 04/03/2015 11:42 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote: Yes the current effort is to clean up the scheduler interfaces but one of the main goals of that clean up is to make it possible to then split out the scheduler to a separate project. I don't want to lose focus on the ultimate goal of creating the split. I don't agree that the ultimate goal is splitting the scheduler. IMO, the goal is to create 1) a clean, robust interface along with 2) a scalable architecture. Those improvements will 1) allow the scheduler to be split cleanly, and 2) justify splitting it out. Splitting for the sake of splitting is pointless. - -- - -- Ed Leafe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVHsbeAAoJEKMgtcocwZqLdysQAIJ6nThjqgNgJu1hLW4n6MDY Db57k+37b5M5h6Z633jrXSTWCuqjIwUIW2G1+PQMsXq7FcWguAG7fxhVizE4s0h0 RhucmNQ1GWj6eFNfpSljC0WAdZEDhuXnPcxi2OyMwRr0j2lqYcJvPKBmuobS8Rbl xD9ciIlVELtHPm2dsj1HkB8TO7fgESjdv+I2QPU9C31ubp0CYlwSAPCdAhN9g+B0 WVCEnq+7ADn95G+/z77Wlx6s83KkCh89C+h2ivgGI4mHeWJskXT9lr9lsC342DO9 GoWvDvRF5H9/imx6Jh4avipH55YCZfZ9T+2eOPVoAYkXujPiX13tqM8UkBj7KCDx /FJNatC0aTDPYGMgOW329pGWkP9n2ceW1gMlyHpmMFJHCaAdmM+gqnjnarT1UECr 13yndy9axjubisZ71hdGgBi/Sy1FbG5+XVshWyAUgzoJZurDtg4RhhUdw8n0iQKd SuA3E9Z+PI6gTulp532JdHBVOpsG2P+9QOzLwBEnpSp8WmuU8h2EVMm6A3Zdrf+4 zIUL8lvpDwZ/0KBHSF6WptZspSXe/OwOKlQYO2geHkeARANv3Tv/h3HB/7SW1Bz0 8N5K2aDK/adzfzagrV0S3f201JoFC90JSXgA4dDdtHr8/oUj1kw3QoTACVrvPvYP ayW76hfM68cjJ3DyhXys =5h63 -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler
Yes the current effort is to clean up the scheduler interfaces but one of the main goals of that clean up is to make it possible to then split out the scheduler to a separate project. I don't want to lose focus on the ultimate goal of creating the split. What we call that separate project is completely arbitrary. To me Gantt is the separate scheduler, the steps we go through to achieve that starts with the clean up and continues through the split. We can change the names but until we do the split any name we chose will still be just a goal. Calling the separate scheduler gantt or fubar or xyzzy makes no difference, we still have to clean up the scheduler interfaces and split out the code. -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 4:22 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler Gantt is a dead and abandoned source tree, it also means nothing to new people joining into helping with the nova scheduler. It keeps generating confusion. Gantt is dead, the current effort is nova-scheduler improvement. Please just call it that. -Sean On 04/02/2015 04:10 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: Le 02/04/2015 01:28, Dugger, Donald D a écrit : I think there's a lot of `a rose by any other name would smell as sweet' going on here, we're really just arguing about how we label things. I admit I use the term gantt as a very expansive, this is the effort to clean up the current scheduler and create a separate scheduler as a service project. There should be no reason that this effort should turn off people, if you're interested in the scheduler then very quickly you will get pointed to gantt. I'd like to hear what others think but I still don't see a need to change the name (but I'm willing to change if the majority thinks we should drop gantt for now). Erm, I discussed that point during the weekly meeting and I pledged for people giving their opinion in this email. http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/gantt/2015/gantt.2015-03-31-15 .00.html As a meeting is by definition a synchronous thing, should we maybe try to async that decision using Gerrit ? I could pop up a resolution in Gerrit so that people could -1 or +1 it. -Sylvain -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sba...@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:49 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler Le 31/03/2015 02:57, Dugger, Donald D a écrit : I actually prefer to use the term Gantt, it neatly encapsulates the discussions and it doesn't take much effort to realize that Gantt refers to the scheduler and, if you feel there is confusion, we can clarify things in the wiki page to emphasize the process: clean up the current scheduler interfaces and then split off the scheduler. The end goal will be the Gantt scheduler and I'd prefer not to change the discussion. Bottom line is I don't see a need to drop the Gantt reference. While I agree with you that *most* of the scheduler effort is to spin-off the scheduler as a dedicated repository whose codename is Gantt, there are some notes to do : 1. not all the efforts are related to the split, some are only reducing the tech debt within Nova (eg. bp/detach-service-from-computenode has very little impact on the scheduler itself, but rather on what is passed to the scheduler as resources) and may confuse people who could wonder why it is related to the split 2. We haven't yet agreed on a migration path for Gantt and what will become the existing nova-scheduler. I seriously doubt that the Nova community would accept to keep the existing nova-scheduler as a feature duplicate to the future Gantt codebase, but that has been not yet discussed and things can be less clear 3. Based on my experience, we are loosing contributors or people interested in the scheduler area because they just don't know that Gantt is actually at the moment the Nova scheduler. I seriously don't think that if we decide to leave the Gantt codename unused while we're working on Nova, it won't seriously impact our capacity to propose an alternative based on a separate repository, ideally as a cross-project service. It will just translate the reality, ie. that Gantt is at the moment more an idea than a project. -Sylvain -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sba...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:17 AM To: OpenStack
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler
The goal is not `splitting for the sake of splitting'. The goal is to have a separate scheduler that is ultimately usable by other projects inside OpenStack. Currently Cinder has its own filter based scheduler (duplicating scheduling code in 2 places seems silly), Neutron will need scheduling services, there are multiple places where a common scheduling service would be beneficial. -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Ed Leafe [mailto:e...@leafe.com] Sent: Friday, April 3, 2015 10:59 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 04/03/2015 11:42 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote: Yes the current effort is to clean up the scheduler interfaces but one of the main goals of that clean up is to make it possible to then split out the scheduler to a separate project. I don't want to lose focus on the ultimate goal of creating the split. I don't agree that the ultimate goal is splitting the scheduler. IMO, the goal is to create 1) a clean, robust interface along with 2) a scalable architecture. Those improvements will 1) allow the scheduler to be split cleanly, and 2) justify splitting it out. Splitting for the sake of splitting is pointless. - -- - -- Ed Leafe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVHsbeAAoJEKMgtcocwZqLdysQAIJ6nThjqgNgJu1hLW4n6MDY Db57k+37b5M5h6Z633jrXSTWCuqjIwUIW2G1+PQMsXq7FcWguAG7fxhVizE4s0h0 RhucmNQ1GWj6eFNfpSljC0WAdZEDhuXnPcxi2OyMwRr0j2lqYcJvPKBmuobS8Rbl xD9ciIlVELtHPm2dsj1HkB8TO7fgESjdv+I2QPU9C31ubp0CYlwSAPCdAhN9g+B0 WVCEnq+7ADn95G+/z77Wlx6s83KkCh89C+h2ivgGI4mHeWJskXT9lr9lsC342DO9 GoWvDvRF5H9/imx6Jh4avipH55YCZfZ9T+2eOPVoAYkXujPiX13tqM8UkBj7KCDx /FJNatC0aTDPYGMgOW329pGWkP9n2ceW1gMlyHpmMFJHCaAdmM+gqnjnarT1UECr 13yndy9axjubisZ71hdGgBi/Sy1FbG5+XVshWyAUgzoJZurDtg4RhhUdw8n0iQKd SuA3E9Z+PI6gTulp532JdHBVOpsG2P+9QOzLwBEnpSp8WmuU8h2EVMm6A3Zdrf+4 zIUL8lvpDwZ/0KBHSF6WptZspSXe/OwOKlQYO2geHkeARANv3Tv/h3HB/7SW1Bz0 8N5K2aDK/adzfzagrV0S3f201JoFC90JSXgA4dDdtHr8/oUj1kw3QoTACVrvPvYP ayW76hfM68cjJ3DyhXys =5h63 -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 04/03/2015 11:42 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote: Yes the current effort is to clean up the scheduler interfaces but one of the main goals of that clean up is to make it possible to then split out the scheduler to a separate project. I don't want to lose focus on the ultimate goal of creating the split. I don't agree that the ultimate goal is splitting the scheduler. IMO, the goal is to create 1) a clean, robust interface along with 2) a scalable architecture. Those improvements will 1) allow the scheduler to be split cleanly, and 2) justify splitting it out. Splitting for the sake of splitting is pointless. - -- - -- Ed Leafe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVHsbeAAoJEKMgtcocwZqLdysQAIJ6nThjqgNgJu1hLW4n6MDY Db57k+37b5M5h6Z633jrXSTWCuqjIwUIW2G1+PQMsXq7FcWguAG7fxhVizE4s0h0 RhucmNQ1GWj6eFNfpSljC0WAdZEDhuXnPcxi2OyMwRr0j2lqYcJvPKBmuobS8Rbl xD9ciIlVELtHPm2dsj1HkB8TO7fgESjdv+I2QPU9C31ubp0CYlwSAPCdAhN9g+B0 WVCEnq+7ADn95G+/z77Wlx6s83KkCh89C+h2ivgGI4mHeWJskXT9lr9lsC342DO9 GoWvDvRF5H9/imx6Jh4avipH55YCZfZ9T+2eOPVoAYkXujPiX13tqM8UkBj7KCDx /FJNatC0aTDPYGMgOW329pGWkP9n2ceW1gMlyHpmMFJHCaAdmM+gqnjnarT1UECr 13yndy9axjubisZ71hdGgBi/Sy1FbG5+XVshWyAUgzoJZurDtg4RhhUdw8n0iQKd SuA3E9Z+PI6gTulp532JdHBVOpsG2P+9QOzLwBEnpSp8WmuU8h2EVMm6A3Zdrf+4 zIUL8lvpDwZ/0KBHSF6WptZspSXe/OwOKlQYO2geHkeARANv3Tv/h3HB/7SW1Bz0 8N5K2aDK/adzfzagrV0S3f201JoFC90JSXgA4dDdtHr8/oUj1kw3QoTACVrvPvYP ayW76hfM68cjJ3DyhXys =5h63 -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler
On 04/03/2015 12:59 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: On 04/03/2015 11:42 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote: Yes the current effort is to clean up the scheduler interfaces but one of the main goals of that clean up is to make it possible to then split out the scheduler to a separate project. I don't want to lose focus on the ultimate goal of creating the split. I don't agree that the ultimate goal is splitting the scheduler. IMO, the goal is to create 1) a clean, robust interface along with 2) a scalable architecture. Those improvements will 1) allow the scheduler to be split cleanly, and 2) justify splitting it out. Splitting for the sake of splitting is pointless. +1000 -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler
Le 3 avr. 2015 19:27, Dugger, Donald D donald.d.dug...@intel.com a écrit : The goal is not `splitting for the sake of splitting'. The goal is to have a separate scheduler that is ultimately usable by other projects inside OpenStack. Currently Cinder has its own filter based scheduler (duplicating scheduling code in 2 places seems silly), Neutron will need scheduling services, there are multiple places where a common scheduling service would be beneficial. Agreed. Let's be clear : - Nova needs to reduce its tech debt for scheduling : call it n-sch effort - Nova needs to split its scheduler because it scales out development : call it n-sch split (TBD at Vancouver) - OpenStack needs a cross-project scheduler : call it Gantt All efforts are intersected but are separate. Please don't get me wrong : IMHO, all of them are useful. -Sylvain -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Ed Leafe [mailto:e...@leafe.com] Sent: Friday, April 3, 2015 10:59 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 04/03/2015 11:42 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote: Yes the current effort is to clean up the scheduler interfaces but one of the main goals of that clean up is to make it possible to then split out the scheduler to a separate project. I don't want to lose focus on the ultimate goal of creating the split. I don't agree that the ultimate goal is splitting the scheduler. IMO, the goal is to create 1) a clean, robust interface along with 2) a scalable architecture. Those improvements will 1) allow the scheduler to be split cleanly, and 2) justify splitting it out. Splitting for the sake of splitting is pointless. - -- - -- Ed Leafe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVHsbeAAoJEKMgtcocwZqLdysQAIJ6nThjqgNgJu1hLW4n6MDY Db57k+37b5M5h6Z633jrXSTWCuqjIwUIW2G1+PQMsXq7FcWguAG7fxhVizE4s0h0 RhucmNQ1GWj6eFNfpSljC0WAdZEDhuXnPcxi2OyMwRr0j2lqYcJvPKBmuobS8Rbl xD9ciIlVELtHPm2dsj1HkB8TO7fgESjdv+I2QPU9C31ubp0CYlwSAPCdAhN9g+B0 WVCEnq+7ADn95G+/z77Wlx6s83KkCh89C+h2ivgGI4mHeWJskXT9lr9lsC342DO9 GoWvDvRF5H9/imx6Jh4avipH55YCZfZ9T+2eOPVoAYkXujPiX13tqM8UkBj7KCDx /FJNatC0aTDPYGMgOW329pGWkP9n2ceW1gMlyHpmMFJHCaAdmM+gqnjnarT1UECr 13yndy9axjubisZ71hdGgBi/Sy1FbG5+XVshWyAUgzoJZurDtg4RhhUdw8n0iQKd SuA3E9Z+PI6gTulp532JdHBVOpsG2P+9QOzLwBEnpSp8WmuU8h2EVMm6A3Zdrf+4 zIUL8lvpDwZ/0KBHSF6WptZspSXe/OwOKlQYO2geHkeARANv3Tv/h3HB/7SW1Bz0 8N5K2aDK/adzfzagrV0S3f201JoFC90JSXgA4dDdtHr8/oUj1kw3QoTACVrvPvYP ayW76hfM68cjJ3DyhXys =5h63 -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler
Le 02/04/2015 01:28, Dugger, Donald D a écrit : I think there's a lot of `a rose by any other name would smell as sweet' going on here, we're really just arguing about how we label things. I admit I use the term gantt as a very expansive, this is the effort to clean up the current scheduler and create a separate scheduler as a service project. There should be no reason that this effort should turn off people, if you're interested in the scheduler then very quickly you will get pointed to gantt. I'd like to hear what others think but I still don't see a need to change the name (but I'm willing to change if the majority thinks we should drop gantt for now). Erm, I discussed that point during the weekly meeting and I pledged for people giving their opinion in this email. http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/gantt/2015/gantt.2015-03-31-15.00.html As a meeting is by definition a synchronous thing, should we maybe try to async that decision using Gerrit ? I could pop up a resolution in Gerrit so that people could -1 or +1 it. -Sylvain -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sba...@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:49 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler Le 31/03/2015 02:57, Dugger, Donald D a écrit : I actually prefer to use the term Gantt, it neatly encapsulates the discussions and it doesn't take much effort to realize that Gantt refers to the scheduler and, if you feel there is confusion, we can clarify things in the wiki page to emphasize the process: clean up the current scheduler interfaces and then split off the scheduler. The end goal will be the Gantt scheduler and I'd prefer not to change the discussion. Bottom line is I don't see a need to drop the Gantt reference. While I agree with you that *most* of the scheduler effort is to spin-off the scheduler as a dedicated repository whose codename is Gantt, there are some notes to do : 1. not all the efforts are related to the split, some are only reducing the tech debt within Nova (eg. bp/detach-service-from-computenode has very little impact on the scheduler itself, but rather on what is passed to the scheduler as resources) and may confuse people who could wonder why it is related to the split 2. We haven't yet agreed on a migration path for Gantt and what will become the existing nova-scheduler. I seriously doubt that the Nova community would accept to keep the existing nova-scheduler as a feature duplicate to the future Gantt codebase, but that has been not yet discussed and things can be less clear 3. Based on my experience, we are loosing contributors or people interested in the scheduler area because they just don't know that Gantt is actually at the moment the Nova scheduler. I seriously don't think that if we decide to leave the Gantt codename unused while we're working on Nova, it won't seriously impact our capacity to propose an alternative based on a separate repository, ideally as a cross-project service. It will just translate the reality, ie. that Gantt is at the moment more an idea than a project. -Sylvain -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sba...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:17 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler Hi, tl;dr: I used the [gantt] tag for this e-mail, but I would prefer if we could do this for the last time until we spin-off the project. As it is confusing for many people to understand the difference in between the future Gantt project and the Nova scheduler effort we're doing, I'm proposing to stop using that name for all the efforts related to reducing the technical debt and splitting out the scheduler. That includes, not exhaustively, the topic name for our IRC weekly meetings on Tuesdays, any ML thread related to the Nova scheduler or any discussed related to the scheduler happening on IRC. Instead of using [gantt], please use [nova] [scheduler] tags. That said, any discussion related to the real future of a cross-project scheduler based on the existing Nova scheduler makes sense to be tagged as Gantt, of course. -Sylvain __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler
Gantt is a dead and abandoned source tree, it also means nothing to new people joining into helping with the nova scheduler. It keeps generating confusion. Gantt is dead, the current effort is nova-scheduler improvement. Please just call it that. -Sean On 04/02/2015 04:10 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: Le 02/04/2015 01:28, Dugger, Donald D a écrit : I think there's a lot of `a rose by any other name would smell as sweet' going on here, we're really just arguing about how we label things. I admit I use the term gantt as a very expansive, this is the effort to clean up the current scheduler and create a separate scheduler as a service project. There should be no reason that this effort should turn off people, if you're interested in the scheduler then very quickly you will get pointed to gantt. I'd like to hear what others think but I still don't see a need to change the name (but I'm willing to change if the majority thinks we should drop gantt for now). Erm, I discussed that point during the weekly meeting and I pledged for people giving their opinion in this email. http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/gantt/2015/gantt.2015-03-31-15.00.html As a meeting is by definition a synchronous thing, should we maybe try to async that decision using Gerrit ? I could pop up a resolution in Gerrit so that people could -1 or +1 it. -Sylvain -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sba...@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:49 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler Le 31/03/2015 02:57, Dugger, Donald D a écrit : I actually prefer to use the term Gantt, it neatly encapsulates the discussions and it doesn't take much effort to realize that Gantt refers to the scheduler and, if you feel there is confusion, we can clarify things in the wiki page to emphasize the process: clean up the current scheduler interfaces and then split off the scheduler. The end goal will be the Gantt scheduler and I'd prefer not to change the discussion. Bottom line is I don't see a need to drop the Gantt reference. While I agree with you that *most* of the scheduler effort is to spin-off the scheduler as a dedicated repository whose codename is Gantt, there are some notes to do : 1. not all the efforts are related to the split, some are only reducing the tech debt within Nova (eg. bp/detach-service-from-computenode has very little impact on the scheduler itself, but rather on what is passed to the scheduler as resources) and may confuse people who could wonder why it is related to the split 2. We haven't yet agreed on a migration path for Gantt and what will become the existing nova-scheduler. I seriously doubt that the Nova community would accept to keep the existing nova-scheduler as a feature duplicate to the future Gantt codebase, but that has been not yet discussed and things can be less clear 3. Based on my experience, we are loosing contributors or people interested in the scheduler area because they just don't know that Gantt is actually at the moment the Nova scheduler. I seriously don't think that if we decide to leave the Gantt codename unused while we're working on Nova, it won't seriously impact our capacity to propose an alternative based on a separate repository, ideally as a cross-project service. It will just translate the reality, ie. that Gantt is at the moment more an idea than a project. -Sylvain -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sba...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:17 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler Hi, tl;dr: I used the [gantt] tag for this e-mail, but I would prefer if we could do this for the last time until we spin-off the project. As it is confusing for many people to understand the difference in between the future Gantt project and the Nova scheduler effort we're doing, I'm proposing to stop using that name for all the efforts related to reducing the technical debt and splitting out the scheduler. That includes, not exhaustively, the topic name for our IRC weekly meetings on Tuesdays, any ML thread related to the Nova scheduler or any discussed related to the scheduler happening on IRC. Instead of using [gantt], please use [nova] [scheduler] tags. That said, any discussion related to the real future of a cross-project scheduler based on the existing Nova scheduler makes sense to be tagged as Gantt, of course. -Sylvain
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 04/02/2015 03:10 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: As a meeting is by definition a synchronous thing, should we maybe try to async that decision using Gerrit ? I could pop up a resolution in Gerrit so that people could -1 or +1 it. To me, 'Gantt' refers to a set of code that was created to eventually become a stand-alone scheduler service, replacing the current scheduler in nova. It does not mean the effort to clean up the current scheduler interface to nova, or any other code that may be proposed in the future to provide a scheduling service. Gantt was dead when I re-joined the nova team 7 months ago, and so its name should also die. - -- - -- Ed Leafe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVHV2uAAoJEKMgtcocwZqL1hgQAK4yR5kA7ajDKe/KR+MGaMI4 SXp92l0/1rgKO9cqtv2sq8tACClCrmfTGx9AhNfj34+i1qLnO6wS+kdGK6DasGCb B9Ot6dUth9OljwElaYuy+Wc+6eDEtJnfEa+zxNl7UkDjrT2G4aOM/lfRhtbBgoED 9lkwDPJNLbhf82f/E6z5grex0sPa1YVAVCMXct9irP8uaAedQf21yMKFypXFfcfV XEJjl4CCv20CO7UWKZ/mMccKR0An3O4aGAiKksFPG2dLjdElkp26YlW4FqKDIpeo 5zWOnyMv3Qqxpa4IrvgqwmvtPZbjbpdRZ72kdk1R6NpUhkwIiJJtWPZrwb7ey77G PnWI5jmRw+7Qh8rSNpm77W7Ao1HbIH/tpV5PPGofnlsZXe1Dz+Gu3xB5UQDb/zg9 HRETW4UyKFxgRnnhgxoAzaYfrjKib85aDu1L3B/ouK1iJ+lxmJ353nK0ORCdveGb XQBDliMi/eTk4LzcFDwXIuS8+z80pkZibjo6POI90hXsVtMHASuD++ShZTny1uec vgNuTFo+RUqAPZIQ8Pt0I1YGq2ENQ5uhfkCFENe4dVYlFf2ln/1O7BqMW2URV5vm BhnuLYCfo34F9wHSiKPNhyH3mDO05x+OyLOClKQa8Gjwgecz2D5s84n+zEXT5gcd Ad8vakNbo6Q3TFU/62+P =hMqn -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler
I think there's a lot of `a rose by any other name would smell as sweet' going on here, we're really just arguing about how we label things. I admit I use the term gantt as a very expansive, this is the effort to clean up the current scheduler and create a separate scheduler as a service project. There should be no reason that this effort should turn off people, if you're interested in the scheduler then very quickly you will get pointed to gantt. I'd like to hear what others think but I still don't see a need to change the name (but I'm willing to change if the majority thinks we should drop gantt for now). -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sba...@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:49 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler Le 31/03/2015 02:57, Dugger, Donald D a écrit : I actually prefer to use the term Gantt, it neatly encapsulates the discussions and it doesn't take much effort to realize that Gantt refers to the scheduler and, if you feel there is confusion, we can clarify things in the wiki page to emphasize the process: clean up the current scheduler interfaces and then split off the scheduler. The end goal will be the Gantt scheduler and I'd prefer not to change the discussion. Bottom line is I don't see a need to drop the Gantt reference. While I agree with you that *most* of the scheduler effort is to spin-off the scheduler as a dedicated repository whose codename is Gantt, there are some notes to do : 1. not all the efforts are related to the split, some are only reducing the tech debt within Nova (eg. bp/detach-service-from-computenode has very little impact on the scheduler itself, but rather on what is passed to the scheduler as resources) and may confuse people who could wonder why it is related to the split 2. We haven't yet agreed on a migration path for Gantt and what will become the existing nova-scheduler. I seriously doubt that the Nova community would accept to keep the existing nova-scheduler as a feature duplicate to the future Gantt codebase, but that has been not yet discussed and things can be less clear 3. Based on my experience, we are loosing contributors or people interested in the scheduler area because they just don't know that Gantt is actually at the moment the Nova scheduler. I seriously don't think that if we decide to leave the Gantt codename unused while we're working on Nova, it won't seriously impact our capacity to propose an alternative based on a separate repository, ideally as a cross-project service. It will just translate the reality, ie. that Gantt is at the moment more an idea than a project. -Sylvain -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sba...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:17 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler Hi, tl;dr: I used the [gantt] tag for this e-mail, but I would prefer if we could do this for the last time until we spin-off the project. As it is confusing for many people to understand the difference in between the future Gantt project and the Nova scheduler effort we're doing, I'm proposing to stop using that name for all the efforts related to reducing the technical debt and splitting out the scheduler. That includes, not exhaustively, the topic name for our IRC weekly meetings on Tuesdays, any ML thread related to the Nova scheduler or any discussed related to the scheduler happening on IRC. Instead of using [gantt], please use [nova] [scheduler] tags. That said, any discussion related to the real future of a cross-project scheduler based on the existing Nova scheduler makes sense to be tagged as Gantt, of course. -Sylvain __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler
Le 31/03/2015 02:57, Dugger, Donald D a écrit : I actually prefer to use the term Gantt, it neatly encapsulates the discussions and it doesn't take much effort to realize that Gantt refers to the scheduler and, if you feel there is confusion, we can clarify things in the wiki page to emphasize the process: clean up the current scheduler interfaces and then split off the scheduler. The end goal will be the Gantt scheduler and I'd prefer not to change the discussion. Bottom line is I don't see a need to drop the Gantt reference. While I agree with you that *most* of the scheduler effort is to spin-off the scheduler as a dedicated repository whose codename is Gantt, there are some notes to do : 1. not all the efforts are related to the split, some are only reducing the tech debt within Nova (eg. bp/detach-service-from-computenode has very little impact on the scheduler itself, but rather on what is passed to the scheduler as resources) and may confuse people who could wonder why it is related to the split 2. We haven't yet agreed on a migration path for Gantt and what will become the existing nova-scheduler. I seriously doubt that the Nova community would accept to keep the existing nova-scheduler as a feature duplicate to the future Gantt codebase, but that has been not yet discussed and things can be less clear 3. Based on my experience, we are loosing contributors or people interested in the scheduler area because they just don't know that Gantt is actually at the moment the Nova scheduler. I seriously don't think that if we decide to leave the Gantt codename unused while we're working on Nova, it won't seriously impact our capacity to propose an alternative based on a separate repository, ideally as a cross-project service. It will just translate the reality, ie. that Gantt is at the moment more an idea than a project. -Sylvain -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sba...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:17 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler Hi, tl;dr: I used the [gantt] tag for this e-mail, but I would prefer if we could do this for the last time until we spin-off the project. As it is confusing for many people to understand the difference in between the future Gantt project and the Nova scheduler effort we're doing, I'm proposing to stop using that name for all the efforts related to reducing the technical debt and splitting out the scheduler. That includes, not exhaustively, the topic name for our IRC weekly meetings on Tuesdays, any ML thread related to the Nova scheduler or any discussed related to the scheduler happening on IRC. Instead of using [gantt], please use [nova] [scheduler] tags. That said, any discussion related to the real future of a cross-project scheduler based on the existing Nova scheduler makes sense to be tagged as Gantt, of course. -Sylvain __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler
I actually prefer to use the term Gantt, it neatly encapsulates the discussions and it doesn't take much effort to realize that Gantt refers to the scheduler and, if you feel there is confusion, we can clarify things in the wiki page to emphasize the process: clean up the current scheduler interfaces and then split off the scheduler. The end goal will be the Gantt scheduler and I'd prefer not to change the discussion. Bottom line is I don't see a need to drop the Gantt reference. -- Don Dugger Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse. - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sba...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:17 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using Gantt for discussing about Nova scheduler Hi, tl;dr: I used the [gantt] tag for this e-mail, but I would prefer if we could do this for the last time until we spin-off the project. As it is confusing for many people to understand the difference in between the future Gantt project and the Nova scheduler effort we're doing, I'm proposing to stop using that name for all the efforts related to reducing the technical debt and splitting out the scheduler. That includes, not exhaustively, the topic name for our IRC weekly meetings on Tuesdays, any ML thread related to the Nova scheduler or any discussed related to the scheduler happening on IRC. Instead of using [gantt], please use [nova] [scheduler] tags. That said, any discussion related to the real future of a cross-project scheduler based on the existing Nova scheduler makes sense to be tagged as Gantt, of course. -Sylvain __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
