Open Stack

On 09/04/2014 12:07 AM, Sumit Naiksatam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's been a lot of lively discussion on GBP a few weeks back and we
> wanted to drive forward the discussion on this a bit more. As you
> might imagine, we're excited to move this forward so more people can
> try it out.  Here are the options:
>
> * Neutron feature branch: This presumably allows the GBP feature to be
> developed independently, and will perhaps help in faster iterations.
> There does seem to be a significant packaging issue [1] with this
> approach that hasn’t been completely addressed.
>
> * Neutron-incubator: This allows a path to graduate into Neutron, and
> will be managed by the Neutron core team. That said, the proposal is
> under discussion and there are still some open questions [2].
>
> * Stackforge: This allows the GBP team to make rapid and iterative
> progress, while still leveraging the OpenStack infra. It also provides
> option of immediately exposing the existing implementation to early
> adopters.
>
> Each of the above options does not preclude moving to the other at a later time.
>
> Which option do people think is more preferable?
>
> (We could also discuss this in the weekly GBP IRC meeting on Thursday:
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron_Group_Policy)
>
> Thanks!
>
> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/044283.html
> [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/043577.html

Hi all,

IIRC, Kevin was saying to me in IRC that GBP really needs to live 
in-tree due to it needing access to various internal plugin points and 
to be able to call across different plugin layers/drivers inside of Neutron.

If this is the case, how would the stackforge GBP project work if it 
wasn't a fork of Neutron in its entirety?

Just curious,
-jay