tl;dr: I vote for option 2 as it's the only reasonable path from a deployer's point of view
With my deployer hat on, I think option 1 isn't really valid. It's completely unfair to force deployers to use Cinder before they can upgrade to Folsom. There are real deployments using nova-volumes, let's not screw them. With my developer hat on, I don't want to support two forks of the same slowly-diverging codebase. I definitely want to make sure our stuff is consumable, but we can't be expected to support everything forever. How about we leave nova-volumes in for the Grizzly release, but with a deprecation warning and a notice that we will only maintain it as we would a stable release branch (no features). Waldon On Jul 11, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > Now that the PPB has decided to promote Cinder to core for the Folsom > release, we need to decide what happens to the existing Nova Volume > code. As far as I can see it there are two basic strategies. I'm going > to give an overview of each here: > > Option 1 -- Remove Nova Volume > ============================== > > Process > ------- > * Remove all nova-volume code from the nova project > * Leave the existing nova-volume database upgrades and tables in > place for Folsom to allow for migration > * Provide a simple script in cinder to copy data from the nova > database to the cinder database (The schema for the tables in > cinder are equivalent to the current nova tables) > * Work with package maintainers to provide a package based upgrade > from nova-volume packages to cinder packages > * Remove the db tables immediately after Folsom > > Disadvantages > ------------- > * Forces deployments to go through the process of migrating to cinder > if they want to use volumes in the Folsom release > > Option 2 -- Deprecate Nova Volume > ================================= > > Process > ------- > * Mark the nova-volume code deprecated but leave it in the project > for the folsom release > * Provide a migration path at folsom > * Backport bugfixes to nova-volume throughout the G-cycle > * Provide a second migration path at G > * Package maintainers can decide when to migrate to cinder > > Disadvantages > ------------- > * Extra maintenance effort > * More confusion about storage in openstack > * More complicated upgrade paths need to be supported > > Personally I think Option 1 is a much more manageable strategy because > the volume code doesn't get a whole lot of attention. I want to keep > things simple and clean with one deployment strategy. My opinion is that > if we choose option 2 we will be sacrificing significant feature > development in G in order to continue to maintain nova-volume for another > release. > > But we really need to know if this is going to cause major pain to existing > deployments out there. If it causes a bad experience for deployers we > need to take our medicine and go with option 2. Keep in mind that it > shouldn't make any difference to end users whether cinder or nova-volume > is being used. The current nova-client can use either one. > > Vish > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
