[qa][cinder][devstack] proposed governance changes for some devstack plugins
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. 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. 4. This is a minor point, but can the devstack-plugin-nfs repo be moved back into the 'openstack' namespace? 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
---- On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 13:53:00 -0600 Brian Rosmaita <rosmaita.fossdev@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.
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 ?
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. Those plugins under QA governance also ok for me with your proposal of calloborative maintainance by devstack-core and cinder-core. -gmann
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
On 3/4/20 5:40 PM, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
---- On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 13:53:00 -0600 Brian Rosmaita <rosmaita.fossdev@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!
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
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:53 AM Brian Rosmaita <rosmaita.fossdev@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@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.
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
On 3/6/20 6:12 PM, Goutham Pacha Ravi wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:53 AM Brian Rosmaita <rosmaita.fossdev@gmail.com <mailto:rosmaita.fossdev@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@gmail.com <mailto:rosmaita.fossdev@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.
> > > > 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 > > > > >
---- On Mon, 09 Mar 2020 13:19:32 -0500 Brian Rosmaita <rosmaita.fossdev@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@gmail.com <mailto:rosmaita.fossdev@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@gmail.com <mailto:rosmaita.fossdev@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. -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 > > > > >
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:10 PM Ghanshyam Mann <gmann@ghanshyammann.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@gmail.com <mailto:rosmaita.fossdev@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@gmail.com <mailto:rosmaita.fossdev@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
---- On Mon, 09 Mar 2020 13:19:32 -0500 Brian Rosmaita < rosmaita.fossdev@gmail.com> wrote ---- 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
> > 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
in the 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
> > > > >
---- On Mon, 09 Mar 2020 14:21:09 -0500 Goutham Pacha Ravi <gouthampravi@gmail.com> wrote ----
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:10 PM Ghanshyam Mann <gmann@ghanshyammann.com> wrote: ---- On Mon, 09 Mar 2020 13:19:32 -0500 Brian Rosmaita <rosmaita.fossdev@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@gmail.com <mailto:rosmaita.fossdev@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@gmail.com <mailto:rosmaita.fossdev@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.
Done. Replace the individual with manila group. -gmann
-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 > > > > >
---- On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 13:49:11 -0600 Brian Rosmaita <rosmaita.fossdev@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@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!
Done.
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.
Sure. Please let me know once it is ready or propose it under QA and I will review that.
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.
Sounds good. I proposed the patches: https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:devstack-plugin-nfs+(status:open+OR+sta...) -gmann
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
participants (3)
-
Brian Rosmaita
-
Ghanshyam Mann
-
Goutham Pacha Ravi