Open Stack

On 08/06/2014 07:54 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> I'm curious, how would having Nova reviewers look at this have helped?

As I mentioned on a previous email, Nova is the pre-eminent consumer of 
Neutron's API.

Best,
-jay

> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com
> <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 08/06/2014 07:08 PM, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
>
>         On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi <mb at us.ibm.com
>         <mailto:mb at us.ibm.com><mailto:mb at us.__ibm.com
>         <mailto:mb at us.ibm.com>>>
>            wrote:
>
>             Yes, indeed.
>             I do not want to be over dramatic but the discussion on the
>             original "Group
>             Based Policy and the way forward" thread is nothing short of
>             heartbreaking.
>             After months and months of discussions, three presentations
>             at the past three
>             summits, a design session at the last summit, and (most
>             relevant to this
>             thread) the approval of the spec, why are we talking about
>             the merits of the
>             work now?
>
>             I understand if people think this is not a good idea or this
>             is not a good
>             time. What I do not understand is why these concerns were
>             not raised clearly
>             and openly earlier.
>
>
>         I have to agree here. I'm not sure whether my organization needs
>         GBP or not.
>         It's certainly not our top priority for Neutron given a variety
>         of other more
>         important functional gaps. However, I saw their demo at the
>         summit and it was
>         clear that a lot of work had gone into it even before Icehouse.
>          From the demo
>         it was clearly a useful enhancement to Neutron even if it wasn't
>         at the top
>         of my priority list.
>
>         For people to be asking to justify the "why" this far into the
>         Juno cycle
>         when the spec was approved and the code was demoed at the summit
>         really
>         brings the OpenStack process into question. It's one thing to
>         discuss
>         technical merits of contributions but it's totally different to
>         pull the rug
>         out from under a group of contributors at the last minute after
>         such a long
>         period of development, discussion, and demo.
>
>         Seeing this sort of last minute rejection of a contribution
>         after so much
>         time has been invested in it could very easily have a chilling
>         effect on
>         contributors.
>
>
>     I don't disagree with you, Paul.
>
>     I blame myself for not paying the attention I should have to this
>     earlier in the process.
>
>     FWIW, I had a good conversation with Sumit and Kevin on
>     #openstack-neutron this afternoon about this particular topic. We
>     agree on some things; disagree on others.
>
>     Bottom line, I go back to what I said in a previous email: the Nova
>     and Neutron development teams need to do a much better job in being
>     directly involved in each other's spec discussions and design
>     conversations.
>
>     Best,
>     -jay
>
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.__org
>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__openstack-dev <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Kevin Benton
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>