Open Stack

Yes the current effort is to clean up the scheduler interfaces but one of the main goals of that clean up is to make it possible to then split out the scheduler to a separate project.  I don't want to lose focus on the ultimate goal of creating the split.

What we call that separate project is completely arbitrary.  To me Gantt is the separate scheduler, the steps we go through to achieve that starts with the clean up and continues through the split.  We can change the names but until we do the split any name we chose will still be just a goal.  Calling the separate scheduler gantt or fubar or xyzzy makes no difference, we still have to clean up the scheduler interfaces and split out the code.

--
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
Ph: 303/443-3786

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Dague [mailto:sean at dague.net] 
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 4:22 AM
To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop using "Gantt" for discussing about Nova scheduler

Gantt is a dead and abandoned source tree, it also means nothing to new people joining into helping with the nova scheduler. It keeps generating confusion.

Gantt is dead, the current effort is nova-scheduler improvement. Please just call it that.

	-Sean

On 04/02/2015 04:10 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> 
> Le 02/04/2015 01:28, Dugger, Donald D a écrit :
>> I think there's a lot of `a rose by any other name would smell as 
>> sweet' going on here, we're really just arguing about how we label 
>> things.  I admit I use the term gantt as a very expansive, this is 
>> the effort to clean up the current scheduler and create a separate 
>> scheduler as a service project.  There should be no reason that this 
>> effort should turn off people, if you're interested in the scheduler 
>> then very quickly you will get pointed to gantt.
>>
>> I'd like to hear what others think but I still don't see a need to 
>> change the name (but I'm willing to change if the majority thinks we 
>> should drop gantt for now).
> 
> Erm, I discussed that point during the weekly meeting and I pledged 
> for people giving their opinion in this email.
> 
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/gantt/2015/gantt.2015-03-31-15
> .00.html
> 
> 
> As a meeting is by definition a synchronous thing, should we maybe try 
> to async that decision using Gerrit ? I could pop up a resolution in 
> Gerrit so that people could -1 or +1 it.
> 
> -Sylvain
> 
> 
>> --
>> Don Dugger
>> "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
>> Ph: 303/443-3786
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sbauza at redhat.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:49 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop 
>> using "Gantt" for discussing about Nova scheduler
>>
>>
>> Le 31/03/2015 02:57, Dugger, Donald D a écrit :
>>> I actually prefer to use the term Gantt, it neatly encapsulates the 
>>> discussions and it doesn't take much effort to realize that Gantt 
>>> refers to the scheduler and, if you feel there is confusion, we can 
>>> clarify things in the wiki page to emphasize the process: clean up 
>>> the current scheduler interfaces and then split off the scheduler.
>>> The end goal will be the Gantt scheduler and I'd prefer not to 
>>> change the discussion.
>>>
>>> Bottom line is I don't see a need to drop the Gantt reference.
>> While I agree with you that *most* of the scheduler effort is to 
>> spin-off the scheduler as a dedicated repository whose codename is 
>> Gantt, there are some notes to do :
>>    1. not all the efforts are related to the split, some are only 
>> reducing the tech debt within Nova (eg.
>> bp/detach-service-from-computenode has very little impact on the 
>> scheduler itself, but rather on what is passed to the scheduler as
>> resources) and may confuse people who could wonder why it is related 
>> to the split
>>
>> 2. We haven't yet agreed on a migration path for Gantt and what will 
>> become the existing nova-scheduler. I seriously doubt that the Nova 
>> community would accept to keep the existing nova-scheduler as a 
>> feature duplicate to the future Gantt codebase, but that has been not 
>> yet discussed and things can be less clear
>>
>> 3. Based on my experience, we are loosing contributors or people 
>> interested in the scheduler area because they just don't know that 
>> Gantt is actually at the moment the Nova scheduler.
>>
>>
>> I seriously don't think that if we decide to leave the Gantt codename 
>> unused while we're working on Nova, it won't seriously impact our 
>> capacity to propose an alternative based on a separate repository, 
>> ideally as a cross-project service. It will just translate the 
>> reality, ie. that Gantt is at the moment more an idea than a project.
>>
>> -Sylvain
>>
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Don Dugger
>>> "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
>>> Ph: 303/443-3786
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sylvain Bauza [mailto:sbauza at redhat.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:17 AM
>>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] [scheduler] [gantt] Please stop 
>>> using "Gantt" for discussing about Nova scheduler
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> tl;dr: I used the [gantt] tag for this e-mail, but I would prefer if 
>>> we could do this for the last time until we spin-off the project.
>>>
>>>     As it is confusing for many people to understand the difference 
>>> in between the future Gantt project and the Nova scheduler effort 
>>> we're doing, I'm proposing to stop using that name for all the 
>>> efforts related to reducing the technical debt and splitting out the 
>>> scheduler. That includes, not exhaustively, the topic name for our 
>>> IRC weekly meetings on Tuesdays, any ML thread related to the Nova 
>>> scheduler or any discussed related to the scheduler happening on IRC.
>>> Instead of using [gantt], please use [nova] [scheduler] tags.
>>>
>>> That said, any discussion related to the real future of a 
>>> cross-project scheduler based on the existing Nova scheduler makes 
>>> sense to be tagged as "Gantt", of course.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Sylvain
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>> __ ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>> __ ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _____
>>
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _____
>>
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: 
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev