Hi Chris, Thanks for your info, I got it. That is a quick response and enough for me:-)
Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi --- 2014-02-13 Christopher Yeoh <cbky...@gmail.com>: > Hi Kenichi, > > Ah yes, it was decided at the mid cycle meetup to delay the nova network > changes > until Juno. Sorry I should have told you sooner. > > Regards, > > Chris > > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Kenichi Oomichi <oomi...@mxs.nes.nec.co.jp> > wrote: >> >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> Is it OK to postpone nova-network v3 APIs until Juno release? >> I guess that because some nova-network v3 API patches are abandoned today. >> I'd just like to make it clear. >> >> >> Thanks >> Ken'ichi Ohmichi >> >> --- >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Christopher Yeoh [mailto:cbky...@gmail.com] >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 8:37 PM >> > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Putting nova-network support into >> > the V3 API >> > >> > On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 11:37:29 +0100 >> > Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Christopher Yeoh wrote: >> > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com >> > > > <mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> John and I discussed a third possibility: >> > > >> >> > > >> nova-network v3 should be an extension, so the idea was to: Make >> > > >> nova-network API a subset of neturon (instead of them adopting our >> > > >> API we adopt theirs). And we could release v3 without nova network >> > > >> in Icehouse and add the nova-network extension in Juno. >> > > > >> > > > This would actually be my preferred approach if we can get consensus >> > > > around this. It takes a lot of pressure off this late in the cycle >> > > > and there's less risk around having to live with a nova-network API >> > > > in V3 that still has some rough edges around it. I imagine it will >> > > > be quite a while before we can deprecate the V2 API so IMO going >> > > > one cycle without nova-network support is not a big thing. >> > > >> > > So user story would be, in icehouse release (nothing deprecated yet): >> > > v2 + nova-net: supported >> > > v2 + neutron: supported >> > > v3 + nova-net: n/a >> > > v3 + neutron: supported >> > > >> > > And for juno: >> > > v2 + nova-net: works, v2 could be deprecated >> > > v2 + neutron: works, v2 could be deprecated >> > > v3 + nova-net: works through extension, nova-net could be deprecated >> > >> > So to be clear the idea I think is that nova-net of "v3 + nova-net" >> > would look like the neutron api. Eg nova-net API from v2 would look >> > quite different to 'nova-net' API from v3. To minimise the transition >> > pain for users on V3 moving to a neutron based cloud. Though those >> > moving from v2 + nova-net to v3 + nova-net would have to cope with more >> > changes. >> > >> > > v3 + neutron: supported (encouraged future-proof combo) >> > > >> > > That doesn't sound too bad to me. Lets us finalize v3 core in icehouse >> > > and keeps a lot of simplification / deprecation options open for Juno, >> > > depending on how the nova-net vs. neutron story pans out then. >> > > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > OpenStack-dev mailing list >> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
