[openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volunteers wanted for a modest proposal for an external scheduler in our lifetime

Russell Bryant rbryant at redhat.com
Mon Dec 2 17:08:52 UTC 2013


On 12/02/2013 11:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> I don't really care that much about deprecation in that case, but I care
> about which release the new project is made part of. Would you make it
> part of the Icehouse common release ? That means fast-tracking through
> incubation *and* integration in less than one cycle... I'm not sure we
> want that.
> 
> I agree it's the same code (at least at the beginning), but the idea
> behind forcing all projects to undergo a full cycle before being made
> part of the release is not really about code stability, it's about
> integration with the other projects and all the various programs. We
> want them to go through a whole cycle to avoid putting unnecessary
> stress on packagers, QA, docs, infrastructure and release management.
> 
> So while I agree that we could play tricks around deprecation, I'm not
> sure we should go from forklifted to part of the common release in less
> than 3 months.
> 
> I'm not sure it would buy us anything, either. Having the scheduler
> usable by the end of the Icehouse cycle and integrated in the J cycle
> lets you have one release where both options are available, remove it
> first thing in J and then anyone running J (be it tracking trunk or
> using the final release) is using the external scheduler. That makes
> more sense to me and technically, you still have the option to use it
> with Icehouse.
> 

Not having to maintain code in 2 places is what it buys us.  However,
this particular point is a bit moot until we actually had it done and
working.  Perhaps we should just revisit the deprecation plan once we
actually have the thing split out and running.

-- 
Russell Bryant



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list