On 8/22/2018 1:25 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2018-08-22 11:03:43 -0700 (-0700), melanie witt wrote:
[...]
I think it's about context. If two separate projects do their own priority
and goal setting, separately, I think they will naturally be more different
than they would be if they were one project. Currently, we agree on goals
and priorities together, in the compute context. If placement has its own
separate context, the priority setting and goal planning will be done in the
context of placement. In two separate groups, someone who is a member of
both the Nova and Placement teams would have to persuade Placement-only
members to agree to prioritize a particular item. This may sound subtle, but
it's a notable difference in how things work when it's one team vs two
separate teams. I think having shared context and alignment, at this point
in time, when we have outstanding closely coupled nova/placement work to do,
is critical in delivering for operators and users who are depending on us.
[...]
I'm clearly missing some critical detail about the relationships in
the Nova team. Don't the Nova+Placement contributors already have to
convince the Placement-only contributors what to prioritize working
on?
Yes. But it's not a huge gun to the head kind of situation. It's more
like, "We (nova) need X (in Placement) otherwise we can't get to Y."
There are people that clearly work more on placement than the rest of
nova (Chris and Tetsuro come to mind). So what normally happens is
Chris, or Eric, or Jay, or someone will work on the Placement side stuff
and we'll be stacking the nova-side client bits on top. That's exactly
how [1] worked. Chris did the placement stuff that Dan need to do the
nova stuff. For [2] Chris and Eric are both working on the placement
stuff and Eric has done the framework stuff in nova for the virt drivers
to interface with.
Despite what is coming up in the ML thread and the tc channel, I myself
am not seeing a horde of feature requests breaking down the door and
being ignored/rejected because they are placement-only things that nova
doesn't itself need. Cyborg is probably as close to consuming/using
placement as we have outside of nova. Apparently blazar and zun have
thought about using placement, but I'm not aware of anything more than
talk so far. If those projects (or other people) "feel" like their
requests will be rejected because the mean old nova monsters don't like
non-nova things, then I would say that feeling is unjustified until the
specific technical feature requests are brought up.
Or are you saying that if they disagree that's fine because the
Nova+Placement contributors will get along just fine without the
Placement-only contributors helping them get it done?
It's a mixed team for the most part. As I said, Jay and Eric work on
both nova and placement. Chris and Tetsuro are mostly Placement but the
work they are doing is to enable things that nova needs. I would not say
"get along just fine". The technical/talent gap would be felt, which is
true of losing any strong contributors to a piece of a project - that's
true of any time someone leaves the community, whether on their own
choosing (e.g. danpb/sdague) or not (e.g. alaski/johnthetubaguy).
[1]
https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/queens/implemented/migration-allocations.html
[2]
https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/rocky/approved/reshape-provider-tree.html
--
Thanks,
Matt
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
