[openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Should nova just default to use cinder v3 in Pike?

John Griffith john.griffith8 at gmail.com
Sat Feb 11 20:23:17 UTC 2017

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Matt Riedemann <mriedemos at gmail.com>

> On 2/11/2017 11:47 AM, John Griffith wrote:
>> It seems like just moving Nova to V3 in Pike would alleviate quite a few
>> snarls here.  The fact that V3.0 is just pointing back to V2 for Cinder
>> calls anyway I'm uncertain there's a huge downside to this.  Nova +
>> Cinder V2 coverage is only an entry point issue IIUC (V3.0 points to
>> Cinder V2 API server calls anyway based on what I was looking at).  So
>> it's more an issue of cinderclient and what it's set up at no?
>> Honestly, this is another one of those things we probably need to unwind
>> together at PTG.  The V3 Cinder thing has proven to be quite thorny.
> Scott's nova patch to support cinder v3 is dependent on a
> python-cinderclient change for version discovery for min/max versions in
> the v3 API. Once that's released we just bump the minimum required
> cinderclient in global-requirements for pike and we should be good to go
> there.
> But overall yeah I like the idea of just defaulting to cinderv3 in Pike,
> as long as we can still get cinderv2 coverage in CI in master, which I
> think we can do via grenade jobs.


> --
> Thanks,
> Matt Riedemann
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20170211/b54f18e7/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list