[Openstack-operators] A Hypervisor supporting containers

Aaron Rosen aaronorosen at gmail.com
Fri May 2 07:06:14 UTC 2014

you know, i've never worked anywhere that didn't roll their own distro.

git clone nova
git clone  https://github.com/stackforge/nova-docker nova/nova/virt/docker

/me Rage Quit :)

In all seriousness though, this was discussed in lengths on openstack-dev.
I do feel your pain as an operator if you find that support for a feature
you were using was removed. I think this is the only way to go though in
order to continue raising the openstack bar.



On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:24 PM, matt <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:

> operators perspective...
> you guys had a lot of levity from austin on up to grizzly.  not too many
> folks were using openstack back then.  that's not the case anymore.  even
> early adopters are exiting greenfield testing, and there's an upswing in
> adoption all over.
> you can't cut features out without causing us a lot of work.  the lack of
> an upgrade path is bad enough, we don't need to deal with containers and
> hypervisors being dropped from mainline.  even if it's available from
> stackforge... it's being dropped from mainline means something to us.
> usually a hell of a lot of work.
> and if it means something to us that's different from what you intended,
> then you shouldn't have dropped it.  you need to be more restrictive in
> your choices as it relates to impacting major features.  now i'm going to
> grant you the benefit of the doubt that you think docker is no longer up to
> par for openstack's use.  but if that's not the case and this is just a
> move to try to motivate developers to write better tempest tests, i'd
> suggest you just burned down the barn to get the horses out.  We needed
> that barn.  It was a good barn.  And now that it's gone we need to go
> figure out where we're going to put our stuff.
> -matt
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Michael Still <mikal at stillhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:32 PM, matt <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
>> > I am all for enforcing CI.  But, my understanding of the workflow is
>> code
>> > doesn't go in without unit tests.  Frankly you guys removing sections of
>> > code for not having proper unit testing is downright terrifying.
>>  Doubly so
>> > when it's major feature sets.
>> You are misunderstanding what we mean by CI in this case. We have unit
>> tests (although the coverage isn't always great, but its pretty much
>> on par with every other software project), but what we're talking
>> about here is tempest tests -- which are scenario tests. Things like
>> does booting a virtual machine actually work. Does getconsolelog()
>> actually return a console. etc etc.
>> We're raising the bar on testing. That's always a good thing. Worrying
>> about what we had in the past doesn't really help, because there's
>> nothing I can do about that.
>> Michael
>> --
>> Rackspace Australia
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20140502/187d0ff7/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list