[openstack-dev] [all] QPID incompatible with python 3 and untested in gate -- what to do?

Flavio Percoco flavio at redhat.com
Wed Apr 15 09:53:28 UTC 2015

On 15/04/15 00:04 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>On 2015-04-15 01:26:21 +0200 (+0200), Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> On 14/04/15 23:18 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> >On 2015-04-15 01:10:03 +0200 (+0200), Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >>I'd recommend sending this email to the ops mailing list
>> >
>> >And I'd recommend subscribing to it... it's really quite good! He
>> >did (twice apparently, I expect the second by mistake):
>> >
>> >http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2015-April/006735.html
>> It'd have been useful to have this linked in this thread...
>Er, I just did? You could make the argument that he should have
>posted there first and then linked that thread in his post to the
>dev ML, or posted here first and linked the post here to the ops ML.
>Or are you saying he should have mentioned in both messages that he
>was going to post to both lists but not actually "linked" them
>because of the chicken-and-egg requirement there?

Not going to make a big deal out of this. You came back saying I should
be subscribed to that ml (which I am) and I said that a link to the
ops thread in the original email would've been useful.

When I proposed removing the GridFS driver from glance_store, I asked
for feedback in other mailing lists and then came back here proposing
de dev removal.

>> >>and the users mailing list too.
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >The general mailing list seems a little less focused on this sort of
>> >thing, but I suppose it can't hurt.
>> I disagree, they are still users and we get feedback from them.
>I'm just trying to figure out where in OpenStack any use of QPID is
>end-user facing. If there are users interacting with OpenStack
>clouds via QPID then I'm probably misunderstanding its use cases
>since I assumed it was entirely for inter-service communication (so
>would have bearing on people writing those services and people
>deploying them).
>Regardless, I don't think we have a "users mailing list" we have
>"The OpenStack General mailing list" which includes in its mandate
>"community announcements" so this might qualify, but seems excessive
>and at that point we might as well just post questions to every
>OpenStack mailing list because there might be someone using

The point I tried to make in my previous email is that, whenever we
propose removing something important - like support for a broker - the
broader the audience we try to get feedback from is, the better. You
can argue saying that it's very unlikely that there are ops in the
"OpenStack General mailing list" that are not in the ops m-l, but we
don't know that.

That's it.

Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150415/7be8cbc4/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list