On 14:26 Jul 15, John Griffith wrote: > Ok, so I spent a little time on this; first gathering some detail around > what's been done as well as proposing a patch to sort of step back a bit > and take another look at this [1]. > > Here's some more detail on what is bothering me here: > * Inheritance model Some good discussions happened in the Cinder IRC channel today [1] about this. To sum things up: 1) Cinder has a matrix of optional features. 2) Majority of people in Cinder are OK with the cost of having multiple classes representing features that a driver can choose to support. 3) The benefit of this is seeing which drivers support [2] which features. People are still interested in discussing this at the next Cinder midcycle sprint [3]. My decision is going to be that unless folks want to go and remove optional features like consistency group, replication, etc, we need something to keep track of things. I think there are current problems with the current implementation [4], and I do see value in John's proposal if we didn't have these optional features. [1] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-cinder/%23openstack-cinder.2015-07-27.log.html#t2015-07-27T16:30:28 [2] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/160346/ [3] - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Sprints/CinderLibertySprint [4] - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-June/067572.html -- Mike Perez