On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:27:54 -0700 Dan Smith <d...@danplanet.com> wrote: > > Agreed, a stable virt driver API is not feasible or healthy at this > point, IMHO. However, it doesn't change that much as it is. I know > I'll be making changes to virt drivers in the coming cycle due to > objects and I have no problem submitting the corresponding changes to > the nova-extra-drivers tree for those drivers alongside any that go > for the main one.
If the idea is to gate with nova-extra-drivers this could lead to a rather painful process to change the virt driver API. When all the drivers are in the same tree all of them can be updated at the same time as the infrastructure. If they are in separate trees and Nova gates on nova-extra-drivers then at least temporarily a backwards compatible API would have to remain so the nova-extra-drivers tests still passed. The changes would then be applied to nova-extra-drivers and finally a third changeset to remove the backwards compatible code. We see this in tempest/nova or tempest/cinder occasionally (not often as the APIs are stable) and its not very pretty. Ideally we'd be able to link two changesets for different projects so they can be processed as one. But without that ability I think splitting any drivers out and continuing to gate on them would be bad. Chris _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
