Open Stack

On 11/22/2013 04:45 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> So, a few questions...
> 
>  - If there are no users shall we remove it from Havana and Grizzly as
> well, or does that violate our stability principles too much?
> 
>  - If we don't remove the code from stable, what about removing all
> references from the stable docs and putting in a warning saying that
> powervm is a dead end instead? I want to minimise confusion on the
> part of people deploying stable releases.
> 

I'm not sure I see much value in removing it from past releases.  There
isn't much cost to leaving them there I think.

>  - And finally, as someone who spent a bunch of time reviewing powervm
> code I will admit that I'm kind of annoyed right now. How can IBM
> reassure us that powervc has customers asking for a driver, and that
> those customers will actually deploy a driver if one is merged? Given
> kvm for power is now announced and should be around in 2014, I'd much
> prefer a powerkvm through libvirt implementation to minimise the
> number of drivers.

Let's please separate some issues here.  For this thread, let's focus on
the future of the powervm driver.

A possible new powervc driver is a completely different topic and
shouldn't be tied up in this discussion, IMO.

-- 
Russell Bryant