Open Stack

On 11/22/2013 11:17 AM, Jonathan Proulx wrote:
> To add to the screams of others removing features from nova-network to
> achieve parity with neutron is a non starter, and it rather scares me
> to hear it suggested.

-1 from me too, so everyone can take a deep breath on this.  :-)

> Providing feature parity and easy cut over *should have been* priority
> 1 when quantum split out of nova as it was for cinder (which was a
> delightful and completely unnoticable transition)

+1

I think the experience with Neutron provides us some very good insight
for future project splits/replacements.  We're working on establishing
more clear requirements for project incubation and graduation in the TC.
 One note I put down was that we should require that projects stay
completely focused on being able to deprecate their replacement before
adding *anything* else whenever possible.

A good example is the current discussion around a new scheduling
service.  There have been lots of big ideas around this.  Robert Collins
just started a thread about a proposal to start this project but with a
very strict scope of being able to replace nova-scheduler, and *nothing*
more until that's completely done.  I like that approach quite a bit.

-- 
Russell Bryant