Open Stack

Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com
> <mailto:joe.gordon0 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> John and I discussed a third possibility:
>> 
>> nova-network v3 should be an extension, so the idea was to: Make
>> nova-network API a subset of neturon (instead of them adopting our API
>> we adopt theirs). And we could release v3 without nova network in
>> Icehouse and add the nova-network extension in Juno.
> 
> This would actually be my preferred approach if we can get consensus
> around this. It takes a lot of pressure off this late in the cycle and
> there's less risk around having to live with a nova-network API in V3
> that still has some rough edges around it. I imagine it will be quite a
> while before we can deprecate the V2 API so IMO going one cycle without
> nova-network support is not a big thing.

So user story would be, in icehouse release (nothing deprecated yet):
v2 + nova-net: supported
v2 + neutron: supported
v3 + nova-net: n/a
v3 + neutron: supported

And for juno:
v2 + nova-net: works, v2 could be deprecated
v2 + neutron: works, v2 could be deprecated
v3 + nova-net: works through extension, nova-net could be deprecated
v3 + neutron: supported (encouraged future-proof combo)

That doesn't sound too bad to me. Lets us finalize v3 core in icehouse
and keeps a lot of simplification / deprecation options open for Juno,
depending on how the nova-net vs. neutron story pans out then.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)