Re: Proposal: ceph-iscsi branch/release concept

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Jason,

On 6/25/19 2:02 PM, Jason Dillaman wrote:

> As we have talked about before, I don't like the idea of merging 
> everything and the kitchen sink into the "ceph" repo.

Sorry if this sounds like a rehash. I know we talked about this before,
but I had a few more thoughts about this in the meanwhile, and I didn't
recall we had come to a definitive agreement that was publicly shared/noted.

> We would need to ensure backwards compatibility regardless (be it 
> ceph-iscsi upgrades one node at a time or the ceph-mgr/dashboard 
> being upgraded first before ceph-iscsi). Those issues can be 
> addressed by creating a decent set of unit test cases that simulate 
> the REST interactions expected from the XYZ version of the dashboard 
> to ceph-iscsi.

Agreed, and adding such tests is something that should be done
regardless of where the code resides.

> This isn't the only sub-project that is tied to the core Ceph project
> repo (e.g. ceph-ansible, rook, ceph-csi, go-ceph, ...).

Ack. There are many projects in the Ceph ecosystem and I wouldn't
suggest to merge "everything and the kitchen sink", just because it
relates to Ceph in some form or another.

My rationale for this particular proposal was that the ceph-iscsi code
is fairly limited in scope and size and not dependent on any other
external/special tools, while it does have a tight relationship to the
dashboard. To me, it simply feels like it would benefit from a much
closer integration than the other examples you mentioned above, as it
provides an "access protocol handler" that extends the possibilities in
which data can be stored in Ceph (similar to RGW).

> As part of that same discussion, I also agreed that we should create 
> a "3.x" stable branch along with a new 3.1 release once the last few
> known issues are merged. As of today, I believe it's only a single PR
> that just needs to get tested and merged.

OK, thanks - fair enough. That would already help to minimize confusion,
as long as we also clarify this in the Ceph docs (e.g. which version to
use and where to obtain the packages that match the corresponding Ceph
version).

Lenz

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH - Maxfeldstr. 5 - 90409 Nuernberg (Germany)
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx

[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Devel]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux