Open Stack

On 07/16/2014 08:15 PM, Eric Windisch wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Roman Bogorodskiy
> <rbogorodskiy at mirantis.com <mailto:rbogorodskiy at mirantis.com>> wrote:
> 
>       Eric Windisch wrote:
> 
>     > This thread highlights more deeply the problems for the FreeBSD folks.
>     > First, I still disagree with the recommendation that they
>     contribute to
>     > libvirt. It's a classic example of creating two or more problems
>     from one.
>     > Once they have support in libvirt, how long before their code is in a
>     > version of libvirt acceptable to Nova? When they hit edge-cases or
>     bugs,
>     > requiring changes in libvirt, how long before those fixes are
>     accepted by
>     > Nova?
> 
>     Could you please elaborate why you disagree on the contributing patches
>     to libvirt approach and what the alternative approach do you propose?
> 
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with contributing patches to libvirt. I
> believe that the current system makes it difficult to perform quick,
> iterative development. I wish to see this thread attempt to solve that
> problem and reduce the barrier to getting stuff done.
>  
> 
>     Also, could you please elaborate on what is 'version of libvirt
>     acceptable to Nova'? Cannot we just say that e.g. Nova requires libvirt
>     X.Y to be deployed on FreeBSD?
> 
> 
> This is precisely my point, that we need to support different versions
> of libvirt and to test those versions. If we're going to support
>  different versions of libvirt on FreeBSD, Ubuntu, and RedHat - those
> should be tested, possibly as third-party options.
> 
> The primary testing path for libvirt upstream should be with the latest
> stable release with a non-voting test against trunk. There might be
> value in testing against a development snapshot as well, where we know
> there are features we want in an unreleased version of libvirt but where
> we cannot trust trunk to be stable enough for gate.
>  
> 
>     Anyway, speaking about FreeBSD support I assume we actually talking
>     about Bhyve support. I think it'd be good to break the task and
>     implement FreeBSD support for libvirt/Qemu first
> 
> 
>  I believe Sean was referencing to Bhyve support, this is how I
> interpreted it.

Yes, I meant Bhyve.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140717/acbf14a3/attachment.pgp>