[openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Tony Breeds tony at bakeyournoodle.com
Wed Aug 10 05:54:52 UTC 2016


On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:16:02PM -0700, John Griffith wrote:
> Sorry, I wasn't a part of the sessions in Austin on the topic of long
> terms support of Cinder drivers.  There's a lot going on during the summits
> these days.

For the record the session in Austin, that I think Matt was referencing,  were
about stable life-cycles. not cinder specific.

> Yeah, ok... I do see your point here, and as I mentioned I have had this
> conversation with you and others over he years and I don't disagree.  I also don't have the ability to "force"
> said parties to do things differently.  So when I try and help customers
> that are having issues my only recourse is an out of tree patch, which then
> when said distro notices or finds out they don't want to support the
> customer any longer based on the code no longer being "their blessed
> code".  The fact is that the distros hold the power in these situations, if
> they happen to own the OS release and the storage then it works out great
> for them, not so much for anybody else.​

Right we can't 'force' the distros to participate (if we could we wouldn't be
having this discussion).  The community has a process and all we can do is
encourage distros and the like to participate in that process as it really is
best for them, and us.

> So is the consensus here that the only viable solution is for people to
> invest in keeping the stable branches in general supported longer?  How
> does that work for projects that are interested and have people willing to
> do the work vs projects that don't have the people willing to do the work?
> In other words, Cinder has a somewhat unique problem that Nova, Glance and
> Keystone don't have.  So for Cinder to try and follow the policies,
> processes and philosophies you outlined does that mean that as a project
> Cinder has to try and bend the will of "ALL" of the projects to make this
> happen?  Doesn't seem very realistic to me.​

So the 'Cinder' team wont need to do all the will bending, that's for the
Stable team to do with the support of *everyone* that cares about the outcome.
That probably doens't fill you with hope, but that is the reality.

> Just one last point and I'll move on from the topic.  I'm not sure where
> this illusion that we're testing all the drivers so well is coming from.
> Sure, we require the steps and facade of 3'rd party CI, but dig a bit
> deeper and you soon find that we're not really testing as much as some
> might think here.

That's probbaly true but if we created a 'mitaka-drivers' branch of cinder the
gate CI would rapidly degernate to a noop any unit/functional tests would be
*entirely* 3rd party.

Yours Tony.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160810/482b82dd/attachment.pgp>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list