Open Stack

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:10 PM Ghanshyam Mann <gmann at ghanshyammann.com>
wrote:

>  ---- On Mon, 09 Mar 2020 13:19:32 -0500 Brian Rosmaita <
> rosmaita.fossdev at gmail.com> wrote ----
>  > On 3/6/20 6:12 PM, Goutham Pacha Ravi wrote:
>  > >
>  > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:53 AM Brian Rosmaita
>  > > <rosmaita.fossdev at gmail.com <mailto:rosmaita.fossdev at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >     On 3/4/20 5:40 PM, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
>  > >      >   ---- On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 13:53:00 -0600 Brian Rosmaita
>  > >     <rosmaita.fossdev at gmail.com <mailto:rosmaita.fossdev at gmail.com>>
>  > >     wrote ----
>  > >      >   > Hello QA team and devstack-plugin-ceph-core people,
>  > >      >   >
>  > >      >   > The Cinder team has some proposals we'd like to float.
>  > >      >   >
>  > >      >   > 1. The Cinder team is interested in becoming more active
> in the
>  > >      >   > maintenance of openstack/devstack-plugin-ceph [0].
>  > >     Currently, the
>  > >      >   > devstack-plugin-ceph-core is
>  > >      >   > https://review.opendev.org/#/admin/groups/1196,members
>  > >      >   > The cinder-core is already represented by Eric and Sean;
> we'd
>  > >     like to
>  > >      >   > replace them by including the cinder-core group.
>  > >      >
>  > >      > +1. This is good diea and make sense, I will do the change.
>  > >
>  > >     Great, thanks!
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > I agree this is a great idea to have more members of Cinder joining
> the
>  > > devstack-plugin-ceph team. I would like to have atleast a sub team of
>  > > manila core reviewers added to this project if it makes sense. The
>  > > Manila CephFS drivers (cephfs-native and cephfs-nfs) are currently
> being
>  > > tested with the help of the devstack integration in
> devstack-plugin-ceph.
>  > >
>  > > We have Tom Barron (tbarron) in the team, i'd like to propose myself
>  > > (gouthamr) and Victoria Martinez de la Cruz (vkmc)
>  > >
>  > > Please let me know what you think of the idea.
>  >
>  > I've got no objection from the Cinder side.  I would also not object to
>  > adding the manila-core group instead of individuals.  It's certainly in
>  > your team's interest to keep this thing stable and working, just as it
>  > is for the Cinder team.
>
> Agree, I think adding manila group will be helpful, let me know if ok for
> you
> and accordinfgly I will make changes.
>


Sure thing, works for me. Thanks Brian and Ghanshyam.


>
> -gmann
>
>  >
>  > >
>  > >      >   >
>  > >      >   > 2. The Cinder team is interested in becoming more active
> in the
>  > >      >   > maintenance of x/devstack-plugin-nfs [1].  Currently, the
>  > >      >   > devstack-plugin-nfs-core is
>  > >      >   > https://review.opendev.org/#/admin/groups/1330,members
>  > >      >   > It's already 75% cinder-core members; we'd like to replace
> the
>  > >      >   > individual members with the cinder-core group.  We also
>  > >     propose that
>  > >      >   > devstack-core be added as an included group.
>  > >      >   >
>  > >      >   > 3. The Cinder team is interested in implementing a new
>  > >     devstack plugin:
>  > >      >   >      openstack/devstack-plugin-open-cas
>  > >      >   > This will enable thorough testing of a new feature [2]
> being
>  > >     introduced
>  > >      >   > as experimental in Ussuri and expected to be finalized in
>  > >     Victoria.  Our
>  > >      >   > plan would be to make both cinder-core and devstack-core
>  > >     included groups
>  > >      >   > for the gerrit group governing the new plugin.
>  > >      >
>  > >      > +1. You want this under Cinder governance or under QA ?
>  > >
>  > >     I think it makes sense for these to be under QA governance -- QA
> would
>  > >     own the repo with both QA and Cinder having permission to make
> changes.
>  > >
>  > >      >   >
>  > >      >   > 4. This is a minor point, but can the devstack-plugin-nfs
>  > >     repo be moved
>  > >      >   > back into the 'openstack' namespace?
>  > >      >
>  > >      > If this is usable plugin for nfs testing (I am not aware if we
>  > >     have any other) then
>  > >      > it make sense to bring it to openstack governance.
>  > >      > Same question here, do you want to put this under Cinder
>  > >     governance or QA.
>  > >
>  > >     Same here, I think QA should "own" the repo, but Cinder will have
>  > >     permission to make changes there.
>  > >
>  > >      >
>  > >      > Those plugins under QA governance also ok for me with your
>  > >     proposal of calloborative maintainance by
>  > >      > devstack-core and cinder-core.
>  > >      >
>  > >      > -gmann
>  > >
>  > >     Thanks for the quick response!
>  > >
>  > >      >   >
>  > >      >   > Let us know which of these proposals you find acceptable.
>  > >      >   >
>  > >      >   >
>  > >      >   > [0] https://opendev.org/openstack/devstack-plugin-ceph
>  > >      >   > [1] https://opendev.org/x/devstack-plugin-nfs
>  > >      >   > [2]
>  > >
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/support-volume-local-cache
>  > >      >   >
>  > >      >   >
>  > >      >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200309/9f6b0196/attachment-0001.html>