Open Stack

On Oct 13, 2013, at 14:54 , Christopher Yeoh <cbkyeoh at gmail.com>
 wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:30:30 -0700
> Dan Smith <dms at danplanet.com> wrote:
> 
>>> If the idea is to gate with nova-extra-drivers this could lead to a
>>> rather painful process to change the virt driver API. When all the
>>> drivers are in the same tree all of them can be updated at the same
>>> time as the infrastructure. 
>> 
>> Right, and I think if we split those drivers out, then we do *not*
>> gate on them for the main tree. It's asymmetric, which means
>> potentially more trouble for the maintainers of the extra drivers.
>> However, as has been said, we *want* the drivers in the tree as we
>> have them now. Being moved out would be something the owners of a
>> driver would choose in order to achieve a faster pace of development,
>> with the consequence of having to place catch-up if and when we
>> change the driver API.
> 
> If that's what the owners of the driver want to do then I've no problem
> with supporting that approach. But I very much think that we should aim
> to have drivers integrated into the Nova tree as they mature so we can
> gate on them. Or if not in the tree then at least have a system that
> supports developing in a way that makes gating on them possible without
> the downside pains of not being able to change internal APIs easily. 
> 

For what the driver's interface stability is concerned, I wouldn't see it as a major issue as long as Nova and driver devs coordinate the effort.
Beside that, having a versioned stable driver interface wouldn't be IMHO such a hassle, but as I wrote, this is our very last problem.


> Chris.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev