On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:10:23AM +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > On 23 November 2013 05:32, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:24:18AM -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > >> A good example is the current discussion around a new scheduling > >> service. There have been lots of big ideas around this. Robert Collins > >> just started a thread about a proposal to start this project but with a > >> very strict scope of being able to replace nova-scheduler, and *nothing* > >> more until that's completely done. I like that approach quite a bit. > > > > I'd suggest something even stronger. If we want to split out code into > > a new project, we should always follow the approach used for cinder. > > ie the existing fully functional code should be pulled out as is, and > > work then progress from there. That ensures we'd always have feature > > parity from the very start. Yes, you might have to then do a large > > amount of refactoring to get to where you want to be, but IMHO that's > > preferrable to starting something from scratch and forgetting to cover > > existing use cases. > > That is precisely what I'm suggesting. Forklift the code to another > place and put in place in nova enough glue to talk to it. Complete > parity, no surprises on performance or anything else. Then start > evolving. > > Anything else is just risk for no benefit.
Great, that sounds like the exact right way todo things. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
