Open Stack

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 09/05/2013 09:46 AM, John Griffith wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org
> > <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     John Griffith wrote:
> >     > The code currently is and will be maintained in Cinder, and the
> Cinder
> >     > team will sync changes across to Nova.  The first order of
> >     business for
> >     > Icehouse will be to get the library built up and usable, then
> convert
> >     > over to using that so as to avoid the syncing issues.
> >
> >     This may have been discussed before, but is there any reason to avoid
> >     the Oslo incubator for such a library ?
> >
> > Not really no, in fact that's always been a consideration
> > (
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/shared-block-storage-library)
>
> I figured it just made sense from a team perspective to have Cinder
> maintain this.  That's where the relevant domain expertise is.
>
> The mechanics would certainly be easier as far as syncing code, since it
> would be with the other code in the same situation.  However, that's
> short term anyway.  Hopefully the real library is out ASAP in Icehouse.
>
> Btw, these changes for Nova didn't make for the feature freeze.  So, we
>

BOOOOO :)

will have to discuss whether an exception makes sense.  The alternative
> is to just defer Nova's use of brick to Icehouse and when it's released
> as a library.
>
> --
> Russell Bryant
>

Ok, that being the case I think I'll work on getting it in library form
straight away in Icehouse and go from there.  I'm not sure the exception
makes sense at this stage to be honest, I'll double check on the issues
that were fixed and see where we stand.

Thanks,
John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130905/00297734/attachment.html>