Open Stack

>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> In particular, has there been a decision made about whether it will
>>>> definitely be deprecated in some (as yet unspecified) future release, or
>>>> whether it will continue to be supported for the foreseeable future?
>>>
>>> We want to deprecate it.  There are some things blocking moving forward
>>> with this.  In short:
>>>
>>> 1) Feature parity (primarily something that satisfies performance and HA
>>> requirements addressed by nova-network in multi-host mode)
>>>
>>> 2) Testing and quality parity.  The status of Neutron testing in the
>>> gate is far inferior to the testing done against nova-network.
>>>
>>> I'm personally more worried about #2 than #1 at this point.
>>>
>>> A major issue is that very few people actually stepped up and agreed to
>>> help with #2 at the summit [2].  Only one person signed up to work on
>>> tempest issues.  Nobody signed up to help with grenade.  If this doesn't
>>> happen, nova-network can't be deprecated, IMO.
>>>
>>> If significant progress isn't made ASAP this cycle, and ideally by
>>> mid-cycle so we can change directions if necessary, then we'll have to
>>> discuss what next step to take.  That may include un-freezing
>>> nova-network so that various people holding on to enhancements to
>>> nova-network can start submitting them back.  It's a last resort, but I
>>> consider it on the table.

Another approach to help with (1) is in Icehouse we remove the
features from nova-network that neutron does not implement. We have
warned about deprecation for a good few releases, so its almost OK.

But that somewhat assumes (2) is still going well.

John