Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On 09/02/2016 12:40 PM, Eric Harney wrote: On 08/15/2016 04:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Sean Dague wrote: On 08/12/2016 01:10 PM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: I believe there is a compromise that we could implement in Cinder that enables us to have a deprecation of unsupported drivers that

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On 08/15/2016 04:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Sean Dague wrote: >> On 08/12/2016 01:10 PM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: >>> I believe there is a compromise that we could implement in Cinder that >>> enables us to have a deprecation >>> of unsupported drivers that aren't meeting the Cinder driver

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

Sean Dague wrote: > On 08/12/2016 01:10 PM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: >> I believe there is a compromise that we could implement in Cinder that >> enables us to have a deprecation >> of unsupported drivers that aren't meeting the Cinder driver >> requirements and allow upgrades to work >> without

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

I agree with Duncan here. Driver removal has been an important tool to keep only maintained drivers in the tree and a way to get attention to ignored drivers. I hate to see the tag removed but think we need to stay true to the approach we have been taking. Re-addressing the meaning of the tag

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

There's so much misinformation in that email I barely know where to start. There is nothing stopping out of tree drivers for cinder, and a few have existed, though they don't seem to stick around. The driver is just a python class referenced in the config file. Turning a removed driver into an

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

Clay Gerrard wrote: The use_untested_probably_broken_deprecated_manger_so_maybe_i_can_migrate_cross_fingers option sounds good! The experiment would be then if it's still enough of a stick to keep 3rd party drivers pony'd up on their commitment to the Cinder

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-08-12 14:43:57 -0400: > On 08/12/2016 01:10 PM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > > > >> I was leaning towards a separate repo until I started thinking about all > >> the overhead and complications this would cause. It's another repo for > >> cores to watch.

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On 08/12/2016 01:10 PM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > >> I was leaning towards a separate repo until I started thinking about all >> the overhead and complications this would cause. It's another repo for >> cores to watch. It would cause everyone extra complication in setting up >> their CI, which

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > > I was leaning towards a separate repo until I started thinking about all > the overhead and complications this would cause. It's another repo for > cores to watch. It would cause everyone extra complication

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

I was leaning towards a separate repo until I started thinking about all the overhead and complications this would cause. It's another repo for cores to watch. It would cause everyone extra complication in setting up their CI, which is already one of the biggest roadblocks. It would make it a

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Erno Kuvaja wrote: > > Lets say I was ops evaluating different options as storage vendor for > my cloud and I get told that "Here is the list of supported drivers > for different OpenStack Cinder back ends delivered by Cinder team", I > start

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On 16-08-12 09:21 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Sean Dague wrote: I 100% understand the cinder policy of kicking drivers out without CI. And I think there is a lot of value in ensuring what's in tree is tested. However, from a user perspective basically it means that if you deploy Newton cinder

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 03:40:47PM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: > > On 12 Aug 2016 15:28, "Thierry Carrez" wrote: > > > > > > Duncan Thomas wrote: > > > > > I agree that leaving broken drivers

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 03:40:47PM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 12 Aug 2016 15:28, "Thierry Carrez" wrote: > > > > Duncan Thomas wrote: > > > I agree that leaving broken drivers in tree is not significantly better > > from an operational perspective. But I think the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

Sean Dague wrote: > I 100% understand the cinder policy of kicking drivers out without CI. > And I think there is a lot of value in ensuring what's in tree is tested. > > However, from a user perspective basically it means that if you deploy > Newton cinder and build a storage infrastructure

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

Strictly speaking, we only guarantee lvm... If any other driver starts failing CI and nobody steps up to fix it then it wool be removed. I listed ceph and NFS because I think there's enough knowledge and interest in the core team to keep them working without needing any particular company to help

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On 08/12/2016 08:40 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 12 Aug 2016 15:28, "Thierry Carrez" > wrote: >> >> Duncan Thomas wrote: > >> I agree that leaving broken drivers in tree is not significantly better >> from an operational perspective. But I

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On 12 Aug 2016 15:28, "Thierry Carrez" wrote: > > Duncan Thomas wrote: > I agree that leaving broken drivers in tree is not significantly better > from an operational perspective. But I think the best operational > experience would be to have an idea of how much risk you

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

Duncan Thomas wrote: > Given the options, I'd agree with Sean and John that removing the tag is > a far lesser evil than changing our policy. Agree that the tag should be removed. The Cinder core certainly follows standard deprecation policy, but the Cinder drivers are not. > If we leave broken

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

Given the options, I'd agree with Sean and John that removing the tag is a far lesser evil than changing our policy. If we leave broken drivers in the tree, the end user (operator) is no better off - the thing they evaluated won't work - but it will be harder to tell why. The storage vendor won't

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On 11/08/2016 15:35, John Griffith wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Erno Kuvaja > wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Sean McGinnis > > wrote: > >> >> > >> >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Erno Kuvaja wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Sean McGinnis > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> As follow up on the mailing list discussion [0], gerrit activity > >> >> [1][2] and cinder 3rd party CI policy [3] I'd like to

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: >> >> >> >> As follow up on the mailing list discussion [0], gerrit activity >> >> [1][2] and cinder 3rd party CI policy [3] I'd like to initiate >> >> discussion how Cinder follows, or rather does not follow, the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

> >> > >> As follow up on the mailing list discussion [0], gerrit activity > >> [1][2] and cinder 3rd party CI policy [3] I'd like to initiate > >> discussion how Cinder follows, or rather does not follow, the standard > >> deprecation policy [4] as the project has been tagged on the assert > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Erno Kuvaja's message of 2016-08-11 12:26:59 +0100: >> Hi all, >> >> As follow up on the mailing list discussion [0], gerrit activity >> [1][2] and cinder 3rd party CI policy [3] I'd like to initiate >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

Excerpts from Erno Kuvaja's message of 2016-08-11 12:26:59 +0100: > Hi all, > > As follow up on the mailing list discussion [0], gerrit activity > [1][2] and cinder 3rd party CI policy [3] I'd like to initiate > discussion how Cinder follows, or rather does not follow, the standard > deprecation