openstack team mailing list archive

[Dolph Mathews <dolph.mathews@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:37 PM, George Reese <george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> This ain't the first time I've had a run in with you where your response
> was essentially "if you don't like it, go code it".
>
> And obviously you missed the entire "constructive" point in my response.
> It's this:
>
> The proposed options suck. It's too late to do anything about that as this
> ship has sailed.
>

Perhaps my English is not the best, but what exactly is "constructive"
about this?


>
> What you need to understand going forward is that this community has an
> abysmal history when it comes to compatibility and interoperability.
>
> Abysmal.
>
> Not checkered. Not patchy. Not "lacking". Abysmal.
>
> Horizontally. Vertically. Abysmal.
>
> Actually, shockingly abysmal.
>
> You saw one public response laughing at me for expecting this community to
> care about compatibility. I also received private responses with the same
> sentiment.
>
> If you guys really think you care about compatibility, you need to go sit
> in a corner and do some heavy thinking. Because the history of this project
> and this thread in particular suggest otherwise.
>
> In case you missed it again, here it is in a single sentence:
>
> The constructive point I am making is that it's time to wake up and get
> serious about compatibility and interoperability.
>
> -George
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Brian Waldon wrote:
>
> Planning the development of the projects is valuable as well as
> contributing code. If you review my last message, you'll see the words
> '... or design help', which I intended to represent non-code contribution.
> You seem to have strong opinions on how things should be done, but I don't
> see your voice in any of the community discussions.
>
> Moving forward, I wish you would share your expertise in a constructive
> manner. Keep in mind this list reaches 2200 people. Let's not waste
> anyone's time.
>
> WALDON
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 12:14 PM, George Reese wrote:
>
> So if Im not coding, I should shut up?
>
> I think you answered your own question.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 14:10, Brian Waldon <brian.waldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> What exactly was so offensive about what I said? Communities like
> OpenStack are built on top of people *doing* things, not *talking* about
> things. I'm just asking you to contribute code or design help rather than
> slanderous commentary.
>
> Brian " "Offensive" " Waldon
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 11:59 AM, George Reese wrote:
>
> You evidently have not had to live with the interoperability nightmare
> known as OpenStack in the same way I have. Otherwise, you would find
> responses like Brian's much more offensive.
>
> -George
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Christopher B Ferris wrote:
>
> This level of response is unnecessary.
>
> That said, the perspectives which influenced the decision seemed somewhat
> weighted to the development community. I could be wrong, but I did not see
> much input from the operations community as to the impact.
>
> Clearly, going forward, we want to be more deliberate about changes that
> may have impact on operations and he broader ecosystem that bases its
> efforts on assumptions established at the start of a release cycle, rather
> than on changes introduced late in the cycle.
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 2:24 PM, "George Reese" <george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Well, I think overall OpenStack has done an absolute shit job of
> compatibility and I had hoped (and made a huge point of this at the
> OpenStack conference) Diablo -> Essex would be the end of this
> compatibility bullshit.
>
> But the attitudes in this thread and with respect to the whole Cinder
> question in general suggest to me that this cavalier attitude towards
> forward migration hasn't changed.
>
> So you can kiss my ass.
>
> -George
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Brian Waldon wrote:
>
> We actually care a hell of a lot about compatibility. We also recognize
> there are times when we have to sacrifice compatibility so we can move
> forward at a reasonable pace.
>
> If you think we are handling anything the wrong way, we would love to hear
> your suggestions. If you just want to make comments like this, I would
> suggest you keep them to yourself.
>
> Have a great day!
> Brian Waldon
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:32 AM, George Reese wrote:
>
> This community just doesn't give a rat's ass about compatibility, does it?
>
> -George
>
> On Jul 11, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> Now that the PPB has decided to promote Cinder to core for the Folsom
> release, we need to decide what happens to the existing Nova Volume
> code. As far as I can see it there are two basic strategies. I'm going
> to give an overview of each here:
>
> Option 1 -- Remove Nova Volume
> ==============================
>
> Process
> -------
> * Remove all nova-volume code from the nova project
> * Leave the existing nova-volume database upgrades and tables in
>   place for Folsom to allow for migration
> * Provide a simple script in cinder to copy data from the nova
>   database to the cinder database (The schema for the tables in
>   cinder are equivalent to the current nova tables)
> * Work with package maintainers to provide a package based upgrade
>   from nova-volume packages to cinder packages
> * Remove the db tables immediately after Folsom
>
> Disadvantages
> -------------
> * Forces deployments to go through the process of migrating to cinder
>   if they want to use volumes in the Folsom release
>
> Option 2 -- Deprecate Nova Volume
> =================================
>
> Process
> -------
> * Mark the nova-volume code deprecated but leave it in the project
>   for the folsom release
> * Provide a migration path at folsom
> * Backport bugfixes to nova-volume throughout the G-cycle
> * Provide a second migration path at G
> * Package maintainers can decide when to migrate to cinder
>
> Disadvantages
> -------------
> * Extra maintenance effort
> * More confusion about storage in openstack
> * More complicated upgrade paths need to be supported
>
> Personally I think Option 1 is a much more manageable strategy because
> the volume code doesn't get a whole lot of attention. I want to keep
> things simple and clean with one deployment strategy. My opinion is that
> if we choose option 2 we will be sacrificing significant feature
> development in G in order to continue to maintain nova-volume for another
> release.
>
> But we really need to know if this is going to cause major pain to existing
> deployments out there. If it causes a bad experience for deployers we
> need to take our medicine and go with option 2. Keep in mind that it
> shouldn't make any difference to end users whether cinder or nova-volume
> is being used. The current nova-client can use either one.
>
> Vish
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>  --
> George Reese - Chief Technology Officer, enStratus
> e: george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx    Skype: nspollution    t: @GeorgeReese
>  p: +1.207.956.0217
> enStratus: Enterprise Cloud Management - @enStratus -
> http://www.enstratus.com
> To schedule a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/GeorgeReese
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
>  --
> George Reese - Chief Technology Officer, enStratus
> e: george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx    Skype: nspollution    t: @GeorgeReese
>  p: +1.207.956.0217
> enStratus: Enterprise Cloud Management - @enStratus -
> http://www.enstratus.com
> To schedule a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/GeorgeReese
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>  --
> George Reese - Chief Technology Officer, enStratus
> e: george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx    Skype: nspollution    t: @GeorgeReese
>  p: +1.207.956.0217
> enStratus: Enterprise Cloud Management - @enStratus -
> http://www.enstratus.com
> To schedule a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/GeorgeReese
>
>
>
>
> --
> George Reese - Chief Technology Officer, enStratus
> e: george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx    Skype: nspollution    t: @GeorgeReese
>  p: +1.207.956.0217
> enStratus: Enterprise Cloud Management - @enStratus -
> http://www.enstratus.com
> To schedule a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/GeorgeReese
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>