Open Stack

Patch #88657 should cover this issue. Please review it!

https://review.openstack.org/88657


On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Matt Kassawara <mkassawara at gmail.com>wrote:

> I'll wait until tomorrow and then unlink the OVS sections if nothing comes
> up.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Edgar Magana Perdomo (eperdomo) <
> eperdomo at cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>  All those instructions should be removed from the Docs.
>> I will totally help to move anyone to ML2 instead of OVS or LinuxBridge.
>>
>>  I do support to remove the code totally.
>>
>>  Edgar
>>
>>   From: Anne Gentle <anne at openstack.org>
>> Date: Thursday, April 17, 2014 at 7:56 AM
>> To: Matt Kassawara <mkassawara at gmail.com>
>> Cc: "openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org" <
>> openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack-docs] Poll: What should the fate of the OVS
>> section of the install guide be?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Matt Kassawara <mkassawara at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Shall I do the honors to remove it?
>>>
>>>
>>  Let's leave the poll open overnight in case there's something we
>> haven't thought of -- and log a bug "Remove OVS from Install Guides" tagged
>> icehouse. Seems like the evidence is there to remove though.
>>
>>  Good thing we didn't have to cut a stable branch today. :)
>>
>>  Anne
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Nick Chase <nchase at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We'd originally kept it in because it didn't look like it would be
>>>> deprecated.   Now that it is I agree it should be dropped now that ML2
>>>> works.
>>>>
>>>> ---- Nick
>>>>   On Apr 17, 2014 10:03 AM, "Matt Kassawara" <mkassawara at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Also, Phil Hopkins just pointed out the Icehouse Neutron release notes
>>>>> to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReleaseNotes/Icehouse#OpenStack_Network_Service_.28Neutron.29
>>>>>
>>>>>  In particular...
>>>>>
>>>>>  "The OVS plugin and Linux Bridge plugin are deprecated and should
>>>>> not be used for deployments. The ML2 plugin combines OVS and Linux Bridge
>>>>> support into one plugin. A migration script has been provided for Havana
>>>>> deployments looking to convert to ML2. The migration does not have a
>>>>> rollback capability, so it is recommended the migration be tested on a copy
>>>>> of the database prior to running on a live system."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Matt Kassawara <mkassawara at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Those who responded to the earlier thread want to keep only ML2.
>>>>>> Before deciding what to do with OVS, we need to consider the following
>>>>>> questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  1) Should any new installations use OVS instead of ML2?
>>>>>> 2) Will Juno deprecate OVS?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I don't mind updating the OVS sections and testing them on at least
>>>>>> a handful of the most common distributions, but the process will take a
>>>>>> significant amount of time and effort perhaps better spent working on more
>>>>>> relevant parts of the installation guide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Anne Gentle <anne at openstack.org>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17/04/14 13:40, Steve Gordon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Poll here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.polljunkie.com/poll/jasatw/what-should-we-do-with-ovs
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have two plugins in the neutron section of the install guide:
>>>>>>>>>> ML2 and
>>>>>>>>>> OpenvSwitch.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of these, ML2 has been extensively reworked and tested (it's
>>>>>>>>>> pretty).
>>>>>>>>>> OpenVswitch "may" also work, but has been deprecated for future
>>>>>>>>>> use.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please vote on the poll as to what should happen to the
>>>>>>>>>> OpenvSwitch
>>>>>>>>>> section :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where is the leave it how it is option (which I thought we had
>>>>>>>>> already reached agreement on)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Sorry - option added.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally, I think leaving something in that doesn't meet the
>>>>>>>> quality bar we set by testing everything else in the guide is a bad idea.
>>>>>>>> Especially when there is a good alternative, that significant time has been
>>>>>>>> put into, and is likely a better option for users long-term.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  This feels awfully late for a decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  The previous thread is here from April 3 though:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2014-April/004204.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  I sense the decision then was to ensure ML2 works, and OVS clean
>>>>>>> up could occur later. Matt, do you recall any other discussions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Anne
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Openstack-docs mailing list
>>>>>>>> Openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Openstack-docs mailing list
>>>>>>> Openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Openstack-docs mailing list
>>>>> Openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20140418/4ac39a92/attachment-0001.html>