Open Stack

Sounds like the community would like CI's regardless, and I agree.

Just because the driver code works for one backend solution, doesn't
mean it's going to work with some other.

Lets continue with code reviews with these patches only if they have a
CI reporting, unless someone has a compelling reason we should not let
any rebranded drivers in.

--
Mike Perez


On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Mike Perez <thingee at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a couple of cases [1][2] 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 [3] 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?
>
> Discuss.
>
> [1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187853/
> [2] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187707/4
> [3] - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers
>
> --
> Mike Perez