[openstack-dev] [cinder] Rebranded Volume Drivers
john.griffith8 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 3 17:59:59 UTC 2015
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Mike Perez <thingee at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a couple of cases  I'm seeing where new Cinder volume
> drivers for Liberty are rebranding other volume drivers. This involves
> inheriting off another volume driver's class(es) and providing some
> config options to set the backend name, etc.
> Two problems:
> 1) There is a thought of no CI  is needed, since you're using
> another vendor's driver code which does have a CI.
> 2) IMO another way of satisfying a check mark of being OpenStack
> supported and disappearing from the community.
> What gain does OpenStack get from these kind of drivers?
>  - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187853/
>  - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187707/4
>  - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers
> Mike Perez
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
This case is interesting mostly because it's the same contractor
submitting the driver for all the related platforms. Frankly I find the
whole rebranding annoying, but there's certainly nothing really wrong with
it, and well... why not, it's Open Source.
What I do find annoying is the lack of give back; so this particular
contributor has submitted a few drivers thus far (SCST, DotHill and some
others IIRC), and now has three more proposed. This would be great except I
personally have spent a very significant amount of time with this person
helping with development, CI and understanding OpenStack and Cinder.
To date, I don't see that he's provided a single code review (good or bad)
or contributed anything back other than to his specific venture.
Anyway... I think your point was for input on the two questions:
For item '1':
I guess as silly as it seems they should probably have 3'rd party CI.
There are firmware differences etc that may actually change behaviors, or
things my diverge, or maybe their code is screwed up and the inheritance
doesn't work (doubtful).
Yes, it's just a business venture in this case (good or bad, not for me to
decide). The fact is we don't discriminate or place a value on peoples
contributions, and this shouldn't be any different. I think the best
answer is "follow same process for any driver" and move on. This does
point out that maybe OpenStack/Cinder has grown to a point where there are
so many options and choices that it's time to think about changing some of
the policies and ways we do things.
In my opinion, OpenStack doesn't gain much in this particular case, which
brings me back to;
remove all drivers except the ref-impl and have them pip installable and on
a certified list based on CI.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev