Open Stack

On 28 August 2014 21:58, Chris Friesen <chris.friesen at windriver.com> wrote:
> On 08/28/2014 02:25 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> On 08/28/2014 04:05 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>>> The overall "scheduler-lib" Blueprint is marked with a "high" priority
>>> at "http://status.openstack.org/release/".  Hopefully that would apply
>>> to sub-blueprints as well.
>>
>> a) There are no sub-blueprints to that scheduler-lib blueprint
>
> I guess my terminology was wrong.  The original email referred to
> "https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89893/" as the "crucial BP that needs to
> be implemented".  That is part of
> "https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/isolate-scheduler-db,n,z", which
> is listed as a Gerrit topic in the "scheduler-lib" blueprint that I pointed
> out.

Yeah, its confusing. Those patches are meant for a different blueprint I assume.

>> b) If there were sub-blueprints, that does not mean that they would
>> necessarily take the same priority as their parent blueprint
>
> I'm not sure how that would work.  If we have a high-priority blueprint
> depending on work that is considered low-priority, that would seem to set up
> a classic priority inversion scenario.

What we do is this...

If something high priority depends on something low priority, the low
becomes high.
Or more often, they both become medium.

>> c) There's no reason priorities can't be revisited when necessary
>
> Sure, but in that case it might be a good idea to make the updated priority
> explicit.

If something looks like it has the wrong priority, just ping me, or
one of the other nova-drivers, and we can discuss it. We did a bit of
that at the mid-cylce meet up.

Sometimes I just messed up, sometimes we didn't realise how important
it is, sometimes we need to explain why the other things are
considered more important right now.

Maybe what I said before, but if you see a problem, please shout up
ASAP, and lets get it sorted sooner, when its usually easier to sort
it.

Thanks,
John