Open Stack

On 8/20/2018 8:08 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 8/20/2018 6:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> It was said in the #openstack-tc discussions, but for those on the 
>> mailing list, the biggest concern among the Nova core developers is 
>> that the consensus among Placement cores will certainly not align with 
>> the needs of Nova. I personally think that's ridiculous, and, as one 
>> of the very opinionated people involved, a bit insulting. No one wants 
>> to see either Nova or Placement to fail.
> 
> I believe you're paraphrasing what I said, and I never said I was 
> speaking for all nova core developers. I don't think anyone working on 
> placement would intentionally block things nova needs or try to see nova 
> fail.

Here is an example of the concern. In Sydney we talked about adding 
types to the consumers resource in placement so that nova could use 
placement for counting quotas [1]. Chris considered it a weird hack but 
it's pretty straight-forward from a nova consumption point of view. So 
if placement were separately governed with let's say Chris as PTL, would 
something like that become a holy war type issue because it's "weird" 
and convolutes the desire for a minimalist API? I think Chris' stance on 
this particular item has softened over time as more of a "meh" but it's 
a worry about extracting with a separate team that is against changes 
because they are not ideal for Placement yet are needed for a consumer 
of Placement. I understand this is likely selfish on the part of the 
nova people that want this (including myself) and maybe close-minded to 
alternative solutions to the problem (I'm not sure if it's all been 
thought out end-to-end yet, Mel would likely know the latest on this 
item). Anyway, I like to have examples when I'm stating something to 
gain understanding, so that's what I'm trying to do here - explain, with 
an example, what I said in the tc channel discussion today.

[1] Line 55 https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/SYD-forum-nova-placement-update

-- 

Thanks,

Matt