[openstack-dev] [oslo.messaging][zeromq] 'Subgroup' for broker-less ZeroMQ driver

Flavio Percoco flavio at redhat.com
Tue Mar 24 16:17:17 UTC 2015

On 24/03/15 11:03 -0500, Ben Nemec wrote:
>On 03/24/2015 10:31 AM, Li Ma wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
>>> The goal we set at the Kilo summit was to have a group of people
>>> interested in zmq start contributing to the driver, and I had hoped to
>>> the library overall. How do we feel that is going?
>> That sounds great. I hope so.
>>> One way to create a separate group to manage the zmq driver is to move
>>> it to a separate repository. Is the internal API for messaging drivers
>>> stable enough to do that?
>> Actually I'm not intended to move it to a separate repository. I just
>> want to make sure if it is possible to make a fixed online meeting for
>> zmq driver.
>And personally I'd prefer not to split the repo.  I'd rather explore the
>idea of driver maintainers whose +1 on driver code counts as +2, like we
>had/have with incubator.  Splitting the repo brings up some sticky
>issues with requirements syncs and such.  I'd like to think that with
>only three different drivers we don't need the overhead of managing
>separate repos, but maybe I'm being optimistic. :-)
>Kind of off topic since that's not what is being proposed here, but two
>different people have mentioned it so I wanted to note my preference in
>case it comes up again.

+1 I don't think this needs to be split if the only thing needed is
some extra grants. However, this is not to be forgotten in the long
run where more complex scenarious may appear.


Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150324/9b1a464d/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list