Open Stack

On 02/20/2016 05:39 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Sam,
>
> I seem to recall Paul was not in favor, so there was not a majority of
> cores there.  There were 6 core reviewers at the midcycle, and if you
> only count kolla-core (which at this time I do for policy changes) that
> means we had a vote of 5.  We have 11 core reviewers, so we need a vote
> of 6+ for simple majority. I was also sort of –1 because it is an
> exception, but I do agree the value is warranted.  I believe I expressed
> at  the midcycle that I was –1 to the idea, atleast until the broader
> core review team voted.  If I wasn't clear on that, I apologize.
>
> I'll roll with the community on this one unless I have to tie break –
> then groan :)
>
> That is why a decision was made by the group to take this to the mailing
> list.
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
> From: Sam Yaple <samuel at yaple.net <mailto:samuel at yaple.net>>
> Reply-To: "sam at yaple.net <mailto:sam at yaple.net>" <sam at yaple.net
> <mailto:sam at yaple.net>>, "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
> usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> Date: Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:32 AM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote] port neutron thin containers
> to stable/liberty
>
>     I was under the impression we did have a majority of cores in favor
>     of the idea at the midcycle. But if this is a vote-vote, then I am a
>     very strong +1 as well. This is something operators will absolutely
>     want and and need.
>
>     Sam Yaple
>
>     On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Michał Jastrzębski
>     <inc007 at gmail.com <mailto:inc007 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Strong +1 from me. This have multiple benefits:
>         Easier (aka possible) debugging of networking in running envs (not
>         having tools like tcpdump at your disposal is a pain) - granted,
>         there
>         are ways to get this working without thin containers but require
>         fair
>         amount of docker knowledge.
>         Docker daemon restart will not break routers - currently with docker
>         restart container with namespace dies and we lose our routers (they
>         will migrate using HA, but well, still a networking downtime). This
>         will no longer be the case so...
>         Upgrades with no vm downtime whatsoever depends on this one.
>         If we could deploy liberty code with all these nice stuff, I'd be
>         happier person;)
>
>         Cheers,
>         Michal
>
>         On 20 February 2016 at 07:40, Steven Dake (stdake)
>         <stdake at cisco.com <mailto:stdake at cisco.com>> wrote:
>         > Just clarifying, this is not a "revote" - there were not enough core
>         > reviewers in favor of this idea at the Kolla midcycle, so we need to have a
>         > vote on the mailing list to sort out this policy decision of managing
>         > stable/liberty.
>         >
>         > Regards,
>         > -steve
>         >
>         >
>         > From: Steven Dake <stdake at cisco.com <mailto:stdake at cisco.com>>
>         > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>         > <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>         <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
>         > Date: Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:28 AM
>         > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>         > <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>         <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
>         > Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote] port neutron thin containers to
>         > stable/liberty
>         >
>         > Folks,
>         >
>         > There were not enough core reviewers to pass a majority approval of the
>         > neutron thin container backport idea, so we separated it out from fixing
>         > stable/liberty itself.
>         >
>         > I am going to keep voting open for *2* weeks this time.  The reason for the
>         > two weeks is I would like a week of discussion before people just blindly
>         > vote ;)
>         >
>         > Voting begins now and concludes March 4th.  Since this is a policy decision,
>         > no veto votes are permitted, just a +1 and a  -1.  Abstaining is the same as
>         > voting –1.
>         >

I'm +1, but under condition that we will provide some script to migrate 
from supervisord-container to thin-containers (even if such a script 
will bring risk of downtime of the cloud).