On 11/22/2013 04:45 PM, Michael Still wrote: > So, a few questions... > > - If there are no users shall we remove it from Havana and Grizzly as > well, or does that violate our stability principles too much? > > - If we don't remove the code from stable, what about removing all > references from the stable docs and putting in a warning saying that > powervm is a dead end instead? I want to minimise confusion on the > part of people deploying stable releases. >
I'm not sure I see much value in removing it from past releases. There isn't much cost to leaving them there I think. > - And finally, as someone who spent a bunch of time reviewing powervm > code I will admit that I'm kind of annoyed right now. How can IBM > reassure us that powervc has customers asking for a driver, and that > those customers will actually deploy a driver if one is merged? Given > kvm for power is now announced and should be around in 2014, I'd much > prefer a powerkvm through libvirt implementation to minimise the > number of drivers. Let's please separate some issues here. For this thread, let's focus on the future of the powervm driver. A possible new powervc driver is a completely different topic and shouldn't be tied up in this discussion, IMO. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
