Open Stack

On March 4, 2014 at 16:13:45, Dan Smith (dms at danplanet.com) wrote:
> What I'd like to do next is work through a new proposal that includes 
> keeping both v2 and v3, but with a new added focus of minimizing the 
> cost. This should include a path away from the dual code bases and to 
> something like the "v2.1" proposal. 

I think that the most we can hope for is consensus on _something_. So, 
the thing that I'm hoping would mostly satisfy the largest number of 
people is: 

- Leaving v2 and v3 as they are today in the tree, and with v3 still 
marked experimental for the moment 
- We start on a v2 proxy to v3, with the first goal of fully 
implementing the v2 API on top of v3, as judged by tempest 
- We define the criteria for removing the current v2 code and marking 
the v3 code supported as: 
- The v2 proxy passes tempest 
- The v2 proxy has sign-off from some major deployers as something 
they would be comfortable using in place of the existing v2 code 
- The v2 proxy seems to us to be lower maintenance and otherwise 
preferable to either keeping both, breaking all our users, deleting 
v3 entirely, etc 
- We keep this until we either come up with a proxy that works, or 
decide that it's not worth the cost, etc. 
This seems reasonable.


I think the list of benefits here are: 

- Gives the v3 code a chance to address some of the things we have 
identified as lacking in both trees 
- Gives us a chance to determine if the proxy approach is reasonable or 
a nightmare 
- Gives a clear go/no-go line in the sand that we can ask deployers to 
critique or approve 

+1 on this. As a deployer this is a good stance and I especially like the clear go/no-go line above the other “benefits” with the assumption we are keeping V2 as is (e.g. not planning on deprecating out sections/changing interfaces, or evolving the API to be more V3 like).


It doesn't address all of my concerns, but at the risk of just having 
the whole community split over this discussion, I think this is probably 
(hopefully?) something we can all get behind. 
I agree this doesn’t solve all the concerns, but it’s a good middle ground to stand on. I obviously have a personal preference as a deployer/supporter of OpenStack environments. I have concerns over the V2 proxy, but as long as we are keeping V2 as is, this can move us towards a larger change to V3 and have the solid tempest coverage, I don't see a reason to say “this is a bad approach”.

Cheers,

Morgan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140304/5be3e138/attachment.html>