Open Stack

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:09 AM, 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.
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> Thoughts?

I think this is a good plan.

Michael

-- 
Rackspace Australia