[openstack-dev] [nova] Austin summit priorities session recap

Matt Riedemann mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Thu Jun 9 01:09:08 UTC 2016

On 6/8/2016 7:19 PM, Bias, Randy wrote:
> I just want to point out that this appears to imply that open source
> storage backends for OpenStack would be prioritized over closed-source
> ones and I think that runs counter to the general inclusivity in the
> community.  I assume it¹s just a turn of phrase, but I suspect it could be
> easily misinterpreted to mean that open source storage projects (external
> to OpenStack) could be prioritized over open source ones, creating a very
> uneven playing field, which would potentially be very bad from a
> perception point of view.
> Thanks,
> --Randy
> VP, Technology, EMC Corporation
> Top 10 OpenStack & Cloud Pioneer
> +1 (415) 787-2253 [google voice]
> TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias
> LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias
> EXEC ADMIN: inna.kats at emc.com, +1 (415) 601-1168
> On 5/10/16, 9:40 AM, "Matt Riedemann" <mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> A closed-source vendor-specific ephemeral backend for a single virt
>> driver in Nova isn't a review priority for the release.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

The implication has to do more with the ability to test and develop on 
closed-source vendor specific backends. So there is a smaller group of 
people that can work on these things and we can't/don't test them in the 
community CI system, which is what third party CI requirements are for.

As a data point, it took me about 4 releases to get DB2 support into 
Nova (landed in Liberty) and we ripped that out a couple of weeks ago. 
It wasn't maintained (no CI) and very few people knew how DB2 worked and 
didn't have access to setting up an environment to test it out.

So, no, the ScaleIO backend spec is not being intentionally blocked 
because it's a closed-source vendor solution. I didn't mean it that way. 
I was just trying to point out the matter of priorities for Nova in this 
release. That blueprint is high priority for a single vendor but low 
priority when compared to the very large backlog of items that Nova has 
for the release as a whole.



Matt Riedemann

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list