Open Stack

I definitely agree that such cross-pollination across projects is ideal.

However, I think (and not to deviate from the general discussion on
making blueprint specs review more effective), Kevin's question was
specifically in the context of the GBP blueprint. It is not clear in
that case that a Nova reviewer would have caught the terminology
overlap. Or in other words, anyone else could have caught that, and it
did not have to be a Nova reviewer (perhaps a Keystone reviewer might
have been more perceptive).

Also the model being proposed in the GBP extensions is more
user-centrci (user being the app deployer). Nova's interaction with
Neutron is more in the consumption of the current network/port level
imperative APIs.

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Richard Woo <richardwoo2003 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agreed with Jay. Nova is one of the consumer of Neutron project, someone
> from Nova project should participate reviewing related blueprint in neutron
> project.
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>