Open Stack

On 11/22/2013 04:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:25:51AM +0000, John Garbutt wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Another approach to help with (1) is in Icehouse we remove the
>> features from nova-network that neutron does not implement. We have
>> warned about deprecation for a good few releases, so its almost OK.
> 
> We deprecated it on the basis that users would be able to do a upgrade
> to new release providing something that was feature equivalent.
> 
> We didn't deprecate it on the basis that we were going to remove the
> feature and provide no upgrade path, leaving users screwed.
> 
> So I don't consider removing features from nova-network to be an
> acceptable approach, until they exist in Neutron or something else
> that users can upgrade their existing deployments to.

100% agree. -1 on removing nova-network features that people may very
well be using in production, successfully.

	-Sean

-- 
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/20131122/6644230e/attachment.pgp>