Open Stack

On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 22:05 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 14:02 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Hey,
> > 
> > The thread on naming of namespace packages[1] and the discussion about
> > PEP426 on distutils-sig[2] have lead me to these conclusion:
> > 
> >   - Naming the package oslo.config is a better choice than oslo-config. 
> >     I don't think there's necessarily a standard for naming these 
> >     things but it seems more likely that period-separated will become
> >     more common than hyphen-separated (i.e. zope.interface vs
> >     oslo-config)
> > 
> >   - The date based 2013.1 version is likely to be disallowed by PEP426
> >     when it is ratified and we'll end up making the date based version
> >     a "private version" but 0.2013.1 would be the version on PyPI. Uggh.
> > 
> >   - I'm coming around to the idea of using semantic versioning (i.e. 
> >     x.y.z) and increasing the major number when removing any deprecated 
> >     APIs. That certainly is the trend expressed in PEP426 and on 
> >     distutils-sig. I'd be far more reluctant to actually remove 
> >     deprecated APIs, though, so this would change our policy from 
> >     "remove APIs after a year of deprecation" to "very rarely making 
> >     any incompatible changes to our APIs"
> > 
> >   - With semantic versioning, I figure we'd increase the micro number 
> >     when we do release from the stable branch and increase the minor 
> >     number with every coordinated OpenStack release.
> > 
> > In practical terms, I'm proposing doing:
> > 
> >  -package = 'oslo-config'
> >  -version = '2013.1'
> >  +package = 'oslo.config'
> >  +version = '1.1.0'
> > 
> > in oslo-config's setup.py
> > 
> > I know this is painful for packagers. In Fedora, I'll have to set an
> > "epoch" which packagers always hate doing. In Debian, it'll probably
> > mean the package name changing to python-oslo.config.
> > 
> > However, this is why we didn't publish directly to PyPI - we wanted the
> > opportunity to catch issues like this. So, I'm thinking we should just
> > go for it ASAP.
> 
> Thanks for everyone's input. I've pushed these changes for review:
> 
>   https://review.openstack.org/23621
>   https://review.openstack.org/23622
> 
> I think it's clear we should make the versioning change. The name change
> I'm less certain about, but my instinct tells me we should take the
> opportunity to get it right now.

These have landed now:

  http://tarballs.openstack.org/oslo-config/oslo.config-1.1.0b1.tar.gz

Cheers,
Mark.