Open Stack

Hi,
I have raised my concerns on the proposal. I think that all plugins should be treated on an equal footing. My main concern is having the ML2 plugin in tree whilst the others will be moved out of tree will be problematic. I think that the model will be complete if the ML2 was also out of tree. This will help crystalize the idea and make sure that the model works correctly.
Thanks
Gary

From: "Armando M." <armamig at gmail.com<mailto:armamig at gmail.com>>
Reply-To: OpenStack List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Saturday, December 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM
To: OpenStack List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>, "openstack at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack at lists.openstack.org>" <openstack at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core/Vendor code decomposition

Hi folks,

For a few weeks now the Neutron team has worked tirelessly on [1].

This initiative stems from the fact that as the project matures, evolution of processes and contribution guidelines need to evolve with it. This is to ensure that the project can keep on thriving in order to meet the needs of an ever growing community.

The effort of documenting intentions, and fleshing out the various details of the proposal is about to reach an end, and we'll soon kick the tires to put the proposal into practice. Since the spec has grown pretty big, I'll try to capture the tl;dr below.

If you have any comment please do not hesitate to raise them here and/or reach out to us.

tl;dr >>>

>From the Kilo release, we'll initiate a set of steps to change the following areas:

  *   Code structure: every plugin or driver that exists or wants to exist as part of Neutron project is decomposed in an slim vendor integration (which lives in the Neutron repo), plus a bulkier vendor library (which lives in an independent publicly available repo);
  *   Contribution process: this extends to the following aspects:
     *   Design and Development: the process is largely unchanged for the part that pertains the vendor integration; the maintainer team is fully auto governed for the design and development of the vendor library;
     *   Testing and Continuous Integration: maintainers will be required to support their vendor integration with 3rd CI testing; the requirements for 3rd CI testing are largely unchanged;
     *   Defect management: the process is largely unchanged, issues affecting the vendor library can be tracked with whichever tool/process the maintainer see fit. In cases where vendor library fixes need to be reflected in the vendor integration, the usual OpenStack defect management apply.
     *   Documentation: there will be some changes to the way plugins and drivers are documented with the intention of promoting discoverability of the integrated solutions.
  *   Adoption and transition plan: we strongly advise maintainers to stay abreast of the developments of this effort, as their code, their CI, etc will be affected. The core team will provide guidelines and support throughout this cycle the ensure a smooth transition.

To learn more, please refer to [1].

Many thanks,
Armando

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20141207/e125fc52/attachment.html>