On 11/22/2013 04:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:25:51AM +0000, John Garbutt wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>> In particular, has there been a decision made about whether it will >>>>>> definitely be deprecated in some (as yet unspecified) future release, or >>>>>> whether it will continue to be supported for the foreseeable future? >>>>> >>>>> We want to deprecate it. There are some things blocking moving forward >>>>> with this. In short: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Feature parity (primarily something that satisfies performance and HA >>>>> requirements addressed by nova-network in multi-host mode) >>>>> >>>>> 2) Testing and quality parity. The status of Neutron testing in the >>>>> gate is far inferior to the testing done against nova-network. >>>>> >>>>> I'm personally more worried about #2 than #1 at this point. >>>>> >>>>> A major issue is that very few people actually stepped up and agreed to >>>>> help with #2 at the summit [2]. Only one person signed up to work on >>>>> tempest issues. Nobody signed up to help with grenade. If this doesn't >>>>> happen, nova-network can't be deprecated, IMO. >>>>> >>>>> If significant progress isn't made ASAP this cycle, and ideally by >>>>> mid-cycle so we can change directions if necessary, then we'll have to >>>>> discuss what next step to take. That may include un-freezing >>>>> nova-network so that various people holding on to enhancements to >>>>> nova-network can start submitting them back. It's a last resort, but I >>>>> consider it on the table. >> >> Another approach to help with (1) is in Icehouse we remove the >> features from nova-network that neutron does not implement. We have >> warned about deprecation for a good few releases, so its almost OK. > > We deprecated it on the basis that users would be able to do a upgrade > to new release providing something that was feature equivalent. > > We didn't deprecate it on the basis that we were going to remove the > feature and provide no upgrade path, leaving users screwed. > > So I don't consider removing features from nova-network to be an > acceptable approach, until they exist in Neutron or something else > that users can upgrade their existing deployments to.
100% agree. -1 on removing nova-network features that people may very
well be using in production, successfully.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
