Open Stack

Amrith Kumar wrote:
> [...]
> An important aspect of making this proposal work is that we seek to
> eliminate the effort (planning, and coding) involved in migrating
> existing Trove v1 deployments to the proposed Trove v2. Effectively,
> with work beginning on Trove v2 as proposed here, Trove v1 as released
> with Pike will be marked as deprecated and users will have to migrate to
> Trove v2 when it becomes available.
> 
> While I would very much like to continue to support the users on Trove
> v1 through this transition, the simple fact is that absent community
> participation this will be impossible. Furthermore, given that there are
> no production deployments of Trove at this time, it seems pointless to
> build that upgrade path from Trove v1 to Trove v2; it would be the
> proverbial bridge from nowhere.
> [...]
>From an OpenStack project naming perspective, IMHO the line between a
"v2" and a completely new project (with a new name) is whether you
provide an upgrade path. I feel like if you won't support v1 users at
all (and I understand the reasons why you wouldn't), the new project
should not be called "Trove v2", but "Hoard". I don't really want to set
a precedent of breaking users by restarting from scratch and calling it
"v2", while everywhere else we encourage projects to never break their
users.

In all cases, providing offline tooling to migrate your Trove resources
to Hoard equivalents would be a nice plus, but I'd say that this tooling
is likely to appear if there is a need. Just be receptive to the idea of
adding that in a tools/ directory :)

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)