[openstack-dev] [neutron] New cycle started. What are you up to, folks?

Miguel Angel Ajo mangelajo at redhat.com
Fri Oct 2 17:29:00 UTC 2015

Moshe Levi wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sean M. Collins [mailto:sean at coreitpro.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:42 PM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] New cycle started. What are you up
>> to, folks?
>> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:05:29AM EDT, Kyle Mestery wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Sean M. Collins<sean at coreitpro.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:02:24AM EDT, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>>>>> - more changes with less infra tinkering! neutron devs should not
>>>>> need
>>>> to go to infra projects so often to make an impact;
>>>>> -- make our little neat DevStack plugin used for qos and sr-iov
>>>>> only a
>>>> huge pile of bash code that is currently stored in DevStack and is
>>>> proudly called neutron-legacy now; and make the latter obsolete and
>>>> eventually removed from DevStack;
>>>> We may need to discuss this. I am currently doing a refactor of the
>>>> Neutron DevStack integration in
>>>> https://review.openstack.org/168438
>>>> If I understand your message correctly, I disagree that we should be
>>>> moving all the DevStack support for Neutron out of DevStack and
>>>> making it a plugin. All that does is move the mess from one corner
>>>> of the room, to another corner.
>>> I would actually be in favor of cleaning up the mess AND moving it
>>> into neutron. If it's in Neutron, we control our own destiny with
>>> regards to landing patches which affect DevStack and ultimately our
>>> gate jobs. To me, that's a huge win-win. Thus, cleanup first, then move to
>> Neutron.
>> Frankly we have a bad track record in DevStack, if we are to make an
>> argument about controlling our own destiny. Neutron-lib is in a sad state of
>> affairs because we haven't had the discipline to keep things simple.
>> In fact, I think the whole genesis of the Neutron plugin for DevStack is a great
>> example of how controlling our own destiny has started to grow the mess.
>> Yes, we needed it to gate the QoS code. But now things are starting to get
>> added.
>> https://github.com/openstack/neutron/commit/bd07b74045d93c46483aa26
>> 1b8686072d9b448e8
> I think the decision  should be based on where is the core code located.
> So if SR-IOV, OVS ,Linux Bridge, Qos are still in the neutron core the neutron devstack plugin
> should know how to install them. If we will decide to move them to different repos the
> their devstack part should be moved as well.
That is correct. Eventually, we should either:

1) Move all neutron devstack code into a plugin
2) Or move the QoS bits back into devstack.

The decision to make QoS part of the core was because we're extending 
core resources, and our final aim
is to make it available to all plugins ( here's where the final core 
resource extension manager that Ihar
pointed out comes in place.)

>> The trend is now that people are going to throw things into the Neutron
>> DevStack plugin to get their doo-dad up and running, because making a new
>> repo is harder than creating a patch (which maybe shows are repo creation
>> process needs streamlining). I was originally for making Neutron DevStack
>> plugins that exist in their own repos,
Sincerely, Sean, IMHO it doesn't make any sense to create a repository 
uniquely for a devstack plugin
to enable a feature which is in the main repository. That's also broken.

Would you ask for a separate devstack plugin for l3  too?

>> instead of putting them in the Neutron
>> tree. At least that makes things small, manageable, and straight forward. Yes,
>> it makes for more plugin lines in your DevStack configuration, but at least you
>> know what each one does, instead of being an agglomeration.
>> If we are not careful, the Neutron DevStack plugin will grow into the big mess
>> that neutron-legacy is.

It's a good opportunity to refactor as we move, if "1" is a good 
strategy, otherwise, and if you think
neutron-legacy is a mess, let's work on cleaning it up while at "2".

>> Finally, Look at how many configuration knobs we have, and how there is a
>> tendency to introduce new ones, instead of using local.conf to inject
>> configuration into Neutron and the associated components. This ends up
>> making it very complicated for someone to actually run Neutron in their
>> DevStack, and I think a lot of people would give up and just run Nova-
>> Network, which I will note is *still the default*.

Hmm, I'm not sure I follow, so, if people need to tweak localrc in 
extremis, that's even going
to be more painful from the user/developer perspective.

>> We need to keep our ties strong with other projects, and improve them in
>> some cases. I think culturally, if we start trying to move things into our corner
>> of the sandbox because working with other groups is hard, we send bad
>> signals to others. This will eventually come back to bite us.
>> /rant
>> --
>> Sean M. Collins

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list