Open Stack

Hi,

I'd like to point that ironic-lib is already used outside of Ironic tree -
for the third-party deployment drivers, e.g this fuel-agent based one [0].

[0]
https://github.com/openstack/fuel-agent/blob/master/contrib/ironic/ironic-fa-deploy/ironic_fa_deploy/modules/fuel_agent.py#L30

Best regards,

Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy
Senior Software Engineer
Mirantis Inc
www.mirantis.com

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Lucas Alvares Gomes <lucasagomes at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Sam Betts (sambetts)
> <sambetts at cisco.com> wrote:
> > I personally disagree with saying that if we wanted it make it usable by
> > projects other than ones in the Ironic umbrella it should go into oslo. I
> > think that non-ironic projects directly related to Ironic such as out of
> > tree drivers etc, should be able to utilise the code placed into
> > ironic-lib.
> >
> > Neutron are doing a very similar thing for all their drivers/extensions
> > they have broken out over the last 2 cycles,
> >
> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/neutron-specs/specs/liberty/neutron-li
> > b.html.
> >
> > Making ironic-lib available to out of tree drivers etc also puts us into
> a
> > good position to begin the work to stabilise things like the driver API.
> > Neutron is making the rule that out of tree drivers shouldn¹t
> > inherit/import anything from the neutron core code base, only
> neutron-lib,
> > they are doing this to provide a stable interface that shouldn¹t be
> broken
> > by changes to neutron core. I think we could do the same, with in-tree
> > drivers dog-fooding the driver api we provide in ironic-lib.
> >
>
> I'm personally fine with that goal, if we as a community agree that in
> the soon future of ironic-lib should target a broader audience. The
> thing is that I don't think the lib was conceived with that in mind,
> we started small (baby-steps) sharing partitioning code from Ironic
> and Ironic-Python-Agent, now that it's done we can start working
> towards making it a more generic library.
>
> What I don't think we should do is say that the library's _right now_
> ready for it, the interfaces we have at the moment should not be
> considered stable, Ironic is very opinionated in many aspects
> (specially when partitioning the disk), there's no documentation, no
> release notes, etc...
>
> So, if agreed, let's do it, but let's do it properly.
>
> Cheers,
> Lucas
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160516/c969aaae/attachment.html>