Open Stack

That is clearly a step in the right direction, and I have to commend the
neutron team for really kicking things into high gear in going after
some of these issues.

That said, we still have a long way to go. I think a very frank
evaluation at icehouse-2 is going to be required to figure out whether
nova-network either is indeed deprecated, or we remove the deprecation
language from it and let more feature development happen back on the
nova side.

On 11/15/2013 02:36 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> fyi. gate-tempest-devstack-vm-neutron-large-ops is now a bit more
> stable (compare [1] and [2]) with the Nova change [3]. Joe earlier
> posted a call to arms [4] yesterday.
> 
> [1] http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJcIkZpbmlzaGVkOiBGQUlMVVJFXCIgQU5EIGJ1aWxkX25hbWU6XCJnYXRlLXRlbXBlc3QtZGV2c3RhY2stdm0tbmV1dHJvbi1sYXJnZS1vcHNcIiAiLCJmaWVsZHMiOltdLCJvZmZzZXQiOjAsInRpbWVmcmFtZSI6IjYwNDgwMCIsImdyYXBobW9kZSI6ImNvdW50IiwidGltZSI6eyJ1c2VyX2ludGVydmFsIjowfSwic3RhbXAiOjEzODQ1NDM3NDgzODcsIm1vZGUiOiIiLCJhbmFseXplX2ZpZWxkIjoiIn0=
> [2] http://logstash.openstack.org/#eyJzZWFyY2giOiJcIkZpbmlzaGVkOiBTVUNDRVNTXCIgQU5EIGJ1aWxkX25hbWU6XCJnYXRlLXRlbXBlc3QtZGV2c3RhY2stdm0tbmV1dHJvbi1sYXJnZS1vcHNcIiIsImZpZWxkcyI6W10sIm9mZnNldCI6MCwidGltZWZyYW1lIjoiNjA0ODAwIiwiZ3JhcGhtb2RlIjoiY291bnQiLCJ0aW1lIjp7InVzZXJfaW50ZXJ2YWwiOjB9LCJzdGFtcCI6MTM4NDU0MzgxOTg1MCwibW9kZSI6IiIsImFuYWx5emVfZmllbGQiOiIifQ==
> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56075/
> [4] http://markmail.org/message/lelobpwkle34sh4a
> 
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 11/15/2013 01:26 PM, Lorin Hochstein wrote:
>>> Was the fate of nova-network discussed at the icehouse summit?
>>
>> Yes. [1][2]
>>
>>> In particular, has there been a decision made about whether it will
>>> definitely be deprecated in some (as yet unspecified) future release, or
>>> whether it will continue to be supported for the foreseeable future?
>>
>> We want to deprecate it.  There are some things blocking moving forward
>> with this.  In short:
>>
>> 1) Feature parity (primarily something that satisfies performance and HA
>> requirements addressed by nova-network in multi-host mode)
>>
>> 2) Testing and quality parity.  The status of Neutron testing in the
>> gate is far inferior to the testing done against nova-network.
>>
>> I'm personally more worried about #2 than #1 at this point.
>>
>> A major issue is that very few people actually stepped up and agreed to
>> help with #2 at the summit [2].  Only one person signed up to work on
>> tempest issues.  Nobody signed up to help with grenade.  If this doesn't
>> happen, nova-network can't be deprecated, IMO.
>>
>> If significant progress isn't made ASAP this cycle, and ideally by
>> mid-cycle so we can change directions if necessary, then we'll have to
>> discuss what next step to take.  That may include un-freezing
>> nova-network so that various people holding on to enhancements to
>> nova-network can start submitting them back.  It's a last resort, but I
>> consider it on the table.
>>
>> [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-neutron-nova-parity
>> [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-summit-qa-neutron
>>
>> --
>> Russell Bryant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131116/e9171534/attachment.pgp>