[openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volunteers wanted for a modest proposal for an external scheduler in our lifetime
Russell Bryant
rbryant at redhat.com
Mon Dec 2 15:39:23 UTC 2013
On 12/02/2013 10:33 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> Just because I'd like to argue - if what we do here is an actual
> forklift, do we really need a cycle of deprecation?
>
> The reason I ask is that this is, on first stab, not intended to be a
> service that has user-facing API differences. It's a reorganization of
> code from one repo into a different one. It's very strongly designed to
> not be different. It's not even adding a new service like conductor was
> - it's simply moving the repo where the existing service is held.
>
> Why would we need/want to deprecate? I say that if we get the code
> ectomied and working before nova feature freeze, that we elevate the new
> nova repo and delete the code from nova. Process for process sake here
> I'm not sure gets us anywhere.
That makes sense to me, actually.
I suppose part of the issue is that we're not positive how much work
will happen to the code *after* the forklift. Will we have other
services integrated? Will it have its own database? How different is
different enough to warrant needing a deprecation cycle?
--
Russell Bryant
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list