[openstack-dev] [oslo] maintenance policy for code graduating from the incubator
doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com
Mon Dec 2 14:20:52 UTC 2013
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 08:53 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Doug Hellmann
> > <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com <mailto:doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com>>
> > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
> > <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>> wrote:
> > On 11/29/2013 01:39 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > > We have a review up (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/58297/)
> > to add
> > > some features to the notification system in the oslo
> > incubator. THe
> > > notification system is being moved into oslo.messaging, and so
> > we have
> > > the question of whether to accept the patch to the incubated
> > version,
> > > move it to oslo.messaging, or carry it in both.
> > >
> > > As I say in the review, from a practical standpoint I think we
> > can't
> > > really support continued development in both places. Given the
> > number of
> > > times the topic of "just make everything a library" has come
> > up, I would
> > > prefer that we focus our energy on completing the transition
> > for a given
> > > module or library once it the process starts. We also need to
> > avoid
> > > feature drift, and provide a clear incentive for projects to
> > update to
> > > the new library.
> > >
> > > Based on that, I would like to say that we do not add new
> > features to
> > > incubated code after it starts moving into a library, and only
> > provide
> > > "stable-like" bug fix support until integrated projects are
> > moved over
> > > to the graduated library (although even that is up for
> > discussion).
> > > After all integrated projects that use the code are using the
> > library
> > > instead of the incubator, we can delete the module(s) from the
> > incubator.
> > >
> > > Before we make this policy official, I want to solicit
> > feedback from the
> > > rest of the community and the Oslo core team.
> > +1 in general.
> > You may want to make "after it starts moving into a library" more
> > specific, though.
> > I think my word choice is probably what threw Sandy off, too.
> > How about "after it has been moved into a library with at least a
> > release candidate published"?
> Sure, that's better. That gives a specific bit of criteria for when the
> switch is flipped.
> > One approach could be to reflect this status in the
> > MAINTAINERS file. Right now there is a status field for each
> > module in
> > the incubator:
> > S: Status, one of the following:
> > Maintained: Has an active maintainer
> > Orphan: No current maintainer, feel free to step up!
> > Obsolete: Replaced by newer code, or a dead end, or
> > out-dated
> > It seems that the types of code we're talking about should just
> > marked as Obsolete. Obsolete code should only get stable-like
> > bug fixes.
> > That would mean marking 'rpc' and 'notifier' as Obsolete
> > listed as Maintained). I think that is accurate, though.
> > Good point.
> So, to clarify, possible flows would be:
> 1) An API moving to a library as-is, like rootwrap
> Status: Maintained
> -> Status: Graduating (short term)
> -> Code removed from oslo-incubator once library is released
I think it's ok to mark it as obsolete for a short time, after the release,
until we are sure that the adoption will be as painless as we expect. I'm
not sure we need a hard rule here, but I do agree that the distinction is
the degree to which the API has changed.
> 2) An API being replaced with a better one, like rpc being replaced by
> Status: Maintained
> -> Status: Obsolete (once an RC of a replacement lib has been released)
> -> Code removed from oslo-incubator once all integrated projects have
> been migrated off of the obsolete code
> Does that match your view?
If we had been using the "graduating" status, the rpc, zmq, and
notifications modules would have been marked as graduating during the
havana cycle, too.
> > I also added a "Graduating" status as an indicator for code in that
> > intermediate phase where there are 2 copies to be maintained. I hope we
> > don't have to use it very often, but it's best to be explicit.
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59373/
> Sounds good to me.
> Russell Bryant
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev