Open Stack

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Michael Still <mikal at stillhq.com> 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?
>
>
Speaking with my stable maintainers hat on I would personally NACK this
since
it doesnt meet the standard of a stable maintenance requirement, imho.


>  - 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.


This would be okay in my opinion.


>  - 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.
>
>
This can be said for any number of drivers in the virt layer. For example,
vmware might want to introduce a new product and have a new Openstack
driver, deprecating what we have in Openstack now. I would take a wait and
see approach to what happens.


chuck

> Michael
>
> [1]:
> http://blog.klauskiwi.com/ibm-announces-kvm-coming-to-power-systems-in-2014-powerlinux-powerkvm-rhsummit/
>
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:
> >
> > There was only one response in the user survey that the cloud was using
> PowerVM.
> >
> > Given IBM's request to drop the function, my analysis of the survey data
> says that this would not cause disruption for the deployments who reported
> their configurations.
> >
> > Thus, an accelerated depreciation schedule would seem appropriate. I
> would recommend an e-mail to the openstack operations list to confirm that
> there are no objections.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thierry at openstack.org]
> >> Sent: 22 November 2013 17:25
> >> To: openstack at lists.openstack.org
> >> Cc: Tim Bell; Ryan Lane
> >> Subject: Re: [Openstack] [Nova] Proposed removal of the PowerVM driver
> >>
> >> Russell Bryant wrote:
> >> > The maintainers of the PowerVM driver have proposed that it be removed
> >> > from Nova.  Their reasons are:
> >> >
> >> >  - it is no longer in line with IBM's strategic direction with
> >> > OpenStack
> >> >
> >> >  - they are not aware of anyone ever having used the driver (outside
> of
> >> >    the team that developed and maintained it)
> >> >
> >> > The second point is quite important.  If anyone is using it that they
> >> > do not know of, we need to find out.  Normally we would approach
> >> > something like this with a phased deprecation plan (mark it deprecated
> >> > in Icehouse, remove it in J).  There is a non-zero cost to keeping the
> >> > code, so if we can remove it immediately, there is some benefit to
> >> > Nova development.
> >> >
> >> > If you have an interest in this driver, please speak now.
> >>
> >> According to the user survey there was *1* deployment that reported
> using PowerVM:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.openstack.org/blog/2013/11/openstack-user-survey-statistics-november-2013/
> >>
> >> Maybe the user committee could help us make sure that user knows about
> this plan ?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list:
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
> > Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org
> > Unsubscribe :
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>
>
>
> --
> Rackspace Australia
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list:
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
> Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org
> Unsubscribe :
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20131122/adddc531/attachment.html>