Open Stack

On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 17:22 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 05:17:09PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Hey,
> > 
> > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 12:21 +0200, Gary Kotton wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > There is valid concern about the upgrade procedure with this patch. 
> > > There is a way that we are able to do this without creating an major 
> > > problems:
> > > 1. Leave the class QuantumLinuxBridgeVIFDriver unchanged
> > > 2. Add in a new class QuantumLinuxBridgeVIFDriverEnhanced (or if someone 
> > > has a better name). This class will contain the changes. If someone 
> > > wants to benefit fro the changes then she/he will need to update their 
> > > configuration file to:
> > >      
> > > libvirt_vif_driver=nova.virt.libvirt.vif.QuantumLinuxBridgeVIFDriverEnhanced
> > > This can be documented and it may treat all of the concerns. Naturally a 
> > > patch upstream will need to be added so that this wil be forward compatible.
> > 
> > Yeah, I think this would work well - linuxbridge users are no longer
> > required to update Quantum before Nova, they just need to update Quantum
> > before using the new VIF driver.
> > 
> > So, yep - go for it IMHO. It'll have to wait until after 2012.2.1 though
> > and will have to happen on master too.
> 
> I don't much like that we'd be supporting this duplicate class
> in Grizzly too. IMHO it is right that users of the existing
> code on Folsom, automatically get the new code when switching
> to Grizzly with no re-configuration.

Fair, but the new class name that we add to the Folsom branch needs to
continue to work when people update to Grizzly.

i.e. two classes that do the same thing on Grizzly, but do different
things on Folsom

Cheers,
Mark.