[openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers
thingee at gmail.com
Tue Aug 9 21:45:04 UTC 2016
On 19:40 Aug 08, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish <mtreinish at kortar.org> wrote:
> > This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we
> > don't do
> > this. When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci
> > against
> > it goes away. This means devstack support, job definitions, tempest skip
> > checks,
> > etc. Leaving the branch around advertises that you can still submit
> > patches to
> > it which you can't anymore. As a community we've very clearly said that we
> > don't
> > land any code without ensuring it passes tests first, and we do not
> > maintain any
> > of the infrastructure for doing that after an EOL.
> Ok, to turn the question around, we (the cinder team) have recognised a
> definite and strong need to have somewhere for vendors to share patches on
> versions of Cinder older than the stable branch policy allows.
> Given this need, what are our options?
> 1. We could do all this outside Openstack infrastructure. There are
> significant downsides to doing so from organisational, maintenance, cost
> etc points of view. Also means that the place vendors go for these patches
> is not obvious, and the process for getting patches in is not standard.
> 2. We could have something not named 'stable' that has looser rules than
> stable branches,, maybe just pep8 / unit / cinder in-tree tests. No
> 3. We go with the Neutron model and take drivers out of tree. This is not
> something the cinder core team are in favour of - we see significant value
> in the code review that drivers currently get - the code quality
> improvements between when a driver is submitted and when it is merged are
> sometimes very significant. Also, taking the code out of tree makes it
> difficult to get all the drivers checked out in one place to analyse e.g.
> how a certain driver call is implemented across all the drivers, when
> reasoning or making changes to core code.
Just to set the record straight here, some Cinder core members are in favor of
out of tree.
More information about the OpenStack-dev