<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Michael Still <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mikal@stillhq.com" target="_blank">mikal@stillhq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">So, a few questions...<br>
<br>
- If there are no users shall we remove it from Havana and Grizzly as<br>
well, or does that violate our stability principles too much?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Speaking with my stable maintainers hat on I would personally NACK this since<br></div><div>it doesnt meet the standard of a stable maintenance requirement, imho.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
- If we don't remove the code from stable, what about removing all<br>
references from the stable docs and putting in a warning saying that<br>
powervm is a dead end instead? I want to minimise confusion on the<br></div>
part of people deploying stable releases.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This would be okay in my opinion. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- And finally, as someone who spent a bunch of time reviewing powervm<br>
code I will admit that I'm kind of annoyed right now. How can IBM<br>
reassure us that powervc has customers asking for a driver, and that<br>
those customers will actually deploy a driver if one is merged? Given<br>
kvm for power is now announced and should be around in 2014, I'd much<br>
prefer a powerkvm through libvirt implementation to minimise the<br>
number of drivers.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This can be said for any number of drivers in the virt layer. For example, vmware might want to introduce a new product and have a new Openstack driver, deprecating what we have in Openstack now. I would take a wait and see approach to what happens.<br>
<br><br></div><div>chuck<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Michael<br>
<br>
[1]: <a href="http://blog.klauskiwi.com/ibm-announces-kvm-coming-to-power-systems-in-2014-powerlinux-powerkvm-rhsummit/" target="_blank">http://blog.klauskiwi.com/ibm-announces-kvm-coming-to-power-systems-in-2014-powerlinux-powerkvm-rhsummit/</a><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Tim Bell <<a href="mailto:Tim.Bell@cern.ch">Tim.Bell@cern.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> There was only one response in the user survey that the cloud was using PowerVM.<br>
><br>
> Given IBM's request to drop the function, my analysis of the survey data says that this would not cause disruption for the deployments who reported their configurations.<br>
><br>
> Thus, an accelerated depreciation schedule would seem appropriate. I would recommend an e-mail to the openstack operations list to confirm that there are no objections.<br>
><br>
> Tim<br>
><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:<a href="mailto:thierry@openstack.org">thierry@openstack.org</a>]<br>
>> Sent: 22 November 2013 17:25<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:openstack@lists.openstack.org">openstack@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
>> Cc: Tim Bell; Ryan Lane<br>
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] [Nova] Proposed removal of the PowerVM driver<br>
>><br>
>> Russell Bryant wrote:<br>
>> > The maintainers of the PowerVM driver have proposed that it be removed<br>
>> > from Nova. Their reasons are:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > - it is no longer in line with IBM's strategic direction with<br>
>> > OpenStack<br>
>> ><br>
>> > - they are not aware of anyone ever having used the driver (outside of<br>
>> > the team that developed and maintained it)<br>
>> ><br>
>> > The second point is quite important. If anyone is using it that they<br>
>> > do not know of, we need to find out. Normally we would approach<br>
>> > something like this with a phased deprecation plan (mark it deprecated<br>
>> > in Icehouse, remove it in J). There is a non-zero cost to keeping the<br>
>> > code, so if we can remove it immediately, there is some benefit to<br>
>> > Nova development.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > If you have an interest in this driver, please speak now.<br>
>><br>
>> According to the user survey there was *1* deployment that reported using PowerVM:<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://www.openstack.org/blog/2013/11/openstack-user-survey-statistics-november-2013/" target="_blank">http://www.openstack.org/blog/2013/11/openstack-user-survey-statistics-november-2013/</a><br>
>><br>
>> Maybe the user committee could help us make sure that user knows about this plan ?<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Mailing list: <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack</a><br>
> Post to : <a href="mailto:openstack@lists.openstack.org">openstack@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> Unsubscribe : <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
Rackspace Australia<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Mailing list: <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack</a><br>
Post to : <a href="mailto:openstack@lists.openstack.org">openstack@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
Unsubscribe : <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>