Open Stack

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:06 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>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     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
>> be
>> >         marked as Obsolete.  Obsolete code should only get stable-like
>> >         bug fixes.
>> >
>> >         That would mean marking 'rpc' and 'notifier' as Obsolete
>> (currently
>> >         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
>>
>> 2) An API being replaced with a better one, like rpc being replaced by
>> oslo.messaging
>>
>>    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?
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>>
> So is messaging in 'graduating' since it isn't used by all core projects
> yet (nova - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39929/)?
>

Graduation is a status within the oslo project, not the other projects. We
can't control adoption downstream, so I am trying to set a reasonable
policy for maintenance until we have an official release.

Graduating means there is a git repo with a library but the library has no
releases yet.

Obsolete means there is a library, but we are providing a grace period for
adoption during which critical issues in the incubated version of the code
will be accepted -- but no features.

Doug



>
> --
>> Russell Bryant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131202/abe825cd/attachment.html>