On 07/29/2015 02:37 PM, Armando M. wrote: > Hi, > > Since I was quoted, I would like to take the blame on behalf on the Neutron > core reviewer/drivers team for not providing the right guidance to resolve > the apparent conflict between the two proposals. > > As some reviewers mentioned, we should really strive to catch two birds > with one stone, and ensure that, if at all possible, the same API can > address both use cases presented. In this case, it sounds to me that the > API proposed by the networking-sfc sub-project is more comprehensive, it > has taken the steps to evolve independently from the Neutron core platform, > and it has been iterated on multiple times. Surely we can spin off (the > forwarding engine) from the spin off (the SFC API), but that would feel > like an overkill, especially when both have very little code to show for > (and everyone knows that code wins in OpenStack). > > We should have provided Yuji Azama feedback a lot earlier in the process > but we didn't. Again, blame me! > > I think that Sean raised a flag which should be seen as an acknowledgment > of a need to reconcile the two efforts; let's move past the blame game and > the language barriers, and let's figure out how to address Yuji's need > within the context of a single effort, without dismissing it. For this > reason I am going to suggest we iterate within the networking-sfc project, > and block change 186663 <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186663/>. Let's > figure out how the model/API has to evolve to accommodate the proposed used > need. > > If you disagree, please raise your concern on the patch in review itself. > > Cheers, > Armando
Hi Armando, If my attempts to offer some feedback on communication came across as blame than I failed in what I was trying to accomplish. My goal was and is to try to illustrate the point that competition and collaboration are two separate directions. While some folks come from a competitive background, I hold the vision of OpenStack as a collaborative experience. Some folks many need more time than others to understand and digest the differences in behaviour associated with the two styles of operating. I appreciate your email, Armando. At the very least it sets a good example for others who many be new to collaboration to follow. As always, it is a pleasure to work with you Armax, Anita. > > On 28 July 2015 at 15:01, Sean M. Collins <s...@coreitpro.com> wrote: > >> All, >> >> My suggestion was as follows: >> >>> <sc68cal> I'd say maybe an e-mail to the ML, with the results of this >> meeting, and say that we want to try and converge where >>> there is commonality >> >> I think there is overlap between the two APIs. Let's keep collaborating >> on both the networking-sfc and packet forwarding APIs, to see where we >> have commonality. I think Cathy's initial e-mail may have ruffled >> feathers - and I'd like to smooth them out again. I think the statement >> "we only need one API" is far too premature. >> >> Let's play nice with the other API proposals, yes? >> >> >> -- >> Sean M. Collins >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > __________________________________________________________________________ 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
