Open Stack

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your info, I got it.
That is a quick response and enough for me:-)


Thanks
Ken'ichi Ohmichi

---
2014-02-13 Christopher Yeoh <cbkyeoh at gmail.com>:
> Hi Kenichi,
>
> Ah yes, it was decided at the mid cycle meetup to delay the nova network
> changes
> until Juno. Sorry I should have told you sooner.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Kenichi Oomichi <oomichi at mxs.nes.nec.co.jp>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Is it OK to postpone nova-network v3 APIs until Juno release?
>> I guess that because some nova-network v3 API patches are abandoned today.
>> I'd just like to make it clear.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Ken'ichi Ohmichi
>>
>> ---
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Christopher Yeoh [mailto:cbkyeoh at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 8:37 PM
>> > To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Putting nova-network support into
>> > the V3 API
>> >
>> > On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 11:37:29 +0100
>> > Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Christopher Yeoh wrote:
>> > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com
>> > > > <mailto:joe.gordon0 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> John and I discussed a third possibility:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> nova-network v3 should be an extension, so the idea was to: Make
>> > > >> nova-network API a subset of neturon (instead of them adopting our
>> > > >> API we adopt theirs). And we could release v3 without nova network
>> > > >> in Icehouse and add the nova-network extension in Juno.
>> > > >
>> > > > This would actually be my preferred approach if we can get consensus
>> > > > around this. It takes a lot of pressure off this late in the cycle
>> > > > and there's less risk around having to live with a nova-network API
>> > > > in V3 that still has some rough edges around it. I imagine it will
>> > > > be quite a while before we can deprecate the V2 API so IMO going
>> > > > one cycle without nova-network support is not a big thing.
>> > >
>> > > So user story would be, in icehouse release (nothing deprecated yet):
>> > > v2 + nova-net: supported
>> > > v2 + neutron: supported
>> > > v3 + nova-net: n/a
>> > > v3 + neutron: supported
>> > >
>> > > And for juno:
>> > > v2 + nova-net: works, v2 could be deprecated
>> > > v2 + neutron: works, v2 could be deprecated
>> > > v3 + nova-net: works through extension, nova-net could be deprecated
>> >
>> > So to be clear the idea I think is that nova-net of "v3 + nova-net"
>> > would look like the neutron api. Eg nova-net API from v2 would look
>> > quite different to 'nova-net' API from v3. To minimise the transition
>> > pain for users on V3 moving to a neutron based cloud. Though those
>> > moving from v2 + nova-net to v3 + nova-net would have to cope with more
>> > changes.
>> >
>> > > v3 + neutron: supported (encouraged future-proof combo)
>> > >
>> > > That doesn't sound too bad to me. Lets us finalize v3 core in icehouse
>> > > and keeps a lot of simplification / deprecation options open for Juno,
>> > > depending on how the nova-net vs. neutron story pans out then.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>