[openstack-dev] Policy around Requirements Adds

Mark McLoughlin markmc at redhat.com
Tue Jul 8 10:54:03 UTC 2014


On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 06:26 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 07/08/2014 04:33 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 16:46 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> This thread was unfortunately hidden under a project specific tag (I
> >> have thus stripped all the tags).
> >>
> >> The crux of the argument here is the following:
> >>
> >> Is a stackforge project project able to propose additions to
> >> global-requirements.txt that aren't used by any projects in OpenStack.
> >>
> >> I believe the answer is firmly *no*.
> >>
> >> global-requirements.txt provides a way for us to have a single point of
> >> vetting for requirements for OpenStack. It lets us assess licensing,
> >> maturity, current state of packaging, python3 support, all in one place.
> >> And it lets us enforce that integration of OpenStack projects all run
> >> under a well understood set of requirements.
> > 
> > Allowing Stackforge projects use this as their base set of dependencies,
> > while still taking additional dependencies makes sense to me. I don't
> > really understand this GTFO stance.
> > 
> > Solum wants to depend on mistralclient - that seems like a perfectly
> > reasonable thing to want to do. And they also appear to not want to
> > stray any further from the base set of dependencies shared by OpenStack
> > projects - that also seems like a good thing.
> > 
> > Now, perhaps the mechanics are tricky, and perhaps we don't want to
> > enable Stackforge projects do stuff like pin to a different version of
> > SQLalchemy, and perhaps this proposal isn't the ideal solution, and
> > perhaps infra/others don't want to spend a lot of energy on something
> > specifically for Stackforge projects ... but I don't see something
> > fundamentally wrong with what they want to do.
> 
> Once it's in global requirements, any OpenStack project can include it
> in their requirements. Modifying that file for only stackforge projects
> is what I'm against.
> 
> If the solum team would like to write up a partial sync mechanism,
> that's fine. It just needs to not be impacting the enforcement mechanism
> we actually need for OpenStack projects.

Totally agree. Solum taking a dependency on mistralclient shouldn't e.g.
allow glance to take a dependency on mistralclient.

Mark.




More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list