openstack team mailing list archive

[Andy Smith <andyster@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'd second a bit of what Jay says and toss in that I don't think the code is
ready to be splitting services off:

- There have already been significant problems dealing with glance, the nasa
people and the rackspace people have effectively completely different code
paths (nasa: ec2, objectstore, libvirt; rackspace: rackspace, glance,
xenapi) and that needs to be aligned a bit more before we can create more
separations if we want everybody to be working towards the same goals.
- Try as we might there is still not a real consensus on high level coding
style, for example the Xen-related code is radically different in shape and
style from the libvirt code as is the rackspace api from the ec2 api, and
having projects split off only worsens the problem as individual developers
have fewer eyes on them.

My goal and as far as I can tell most of my team's goals are to rectify a
lot of that situation over the course of the next release by:

- setting up and working through the rackspace side of the code paths (as
mentioned above) enough that we can start generalizing its utility for the
entire project
- actual deprecation of the majority of objectstore
- more thorough code reviews to ensure that code is meeting the overall
style of the project, and probably a document describing the code review
process

After Cactus if the idea makes sense to split off then it can be pursued
then, but at the moment it is much too early to consider it.

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Rick Clark <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Rick Clark <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I recognise the desire to do this for Cactus, but I feel that pulling
> > out the network controller (and/or volume controller) into their own
> > separate OpenStack subprojects is not a good idea for Cactus.  Looking
> > at the (dozens of) blueprints slated for Cactus, doing this kind of
> > major rework will mean that most (if not all) of those blueprints will
> > have to be delayed while this pulling out of code occurs. This will
> > definitely jeopardise the Cactus release.
> >
> > My vote is to delay this at a minimum to the Diablo release.
> >
> > And, for the record, I haven't seen any blueprints for the network as
> > a service or volume as a service projects. Can someone point us to
> > them?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > jay
>
> Whew, Jay I thought you were advocating major changes in Cactus.  That
> would completely mess up my view of the world :)
>
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/bexar-network-service
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/bexar-extend-network-model
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/bexar-network-service
>
>
> It was discussed at ODS, but I have not seen any code or momentum, to date.
>
> I think it is worth while to have an open discussion about what if any
> of this can be safely done in Cactus.  I like you, Jay, feel a bit
> conservative.  I think we lost focus of the reason we chose time based
> releases. It is time to focus on nova being a solid trustworthy
> platform.  Features land when they are of sufficient quality, releases
> contain only the features that passed muster.
>
> I will be sending an email about the focus and theme of Cactus in a
> little while.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>