Open Stack

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Rollenhagen [mailto:jim at jimrollenhagen.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 7:15 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [ironic] Driver removal policies - should we make it
> softer?
> 
> Hi Ironickers,
> 
> There was a big thread here[0] about Cinder, driver removal, and standard
> deprecation policy. If you haven't read through it yet, please do before
> continuing here. :)
> 
> The outcome of that thread is summarized well here.[1]
> 
> I know that I previously had a different opinion on this, but I think we
> should go roughly the same route, for the sake of the users.
> 
> 1) A ``supported`` flag for each driver that is True if and only if the driver
>    is tested in infra or third-party CI (and meets our third party CI
>    requirements).
> 2) If the supported flag is False for a driver, deprecation is implied (and
>    a warning is emitted at load time). A driver may be removed per standard
>    deprecation policies, with turning the supported flag False to start the
>    clock.
> 3) Add a ``enable_unsupported_drivers`` config option that allows enabling
>    drivers marked supported=False. If a driver is in enabled_drivers, has
>    supported=False, and enable_unsupported_drivers=False, ironic-
> conductor
>    will fail to start. Setting enable_unsupported_drivers=True will allow
>    ironic-conductor to start with warnings emitted.
> 
> It is important to note that (3) does still technically break the standard
> deprecation policy (old config may not work with new version of ironic).
> However, this is a much softer landing than the original plan. FWIW, I do
> expect (but not hope!) this part will be somewhat contentious.
> 
> I'd like to hear thoughts and get consensus on this from the rest of the
> ironic community, so please do reply whether you agree or disagree.
> 
> I'm happy to do the work required (update spec, code patches, doc updates)
> when we do come to agreement.
> 
> // jim
> 
> [0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-
> August/101428.html
> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-
> August/101898.html

Thanks Jim. This proposal makes sense to me. So put me into the agree camp.