[openstack-dev] [all] FYI - dropping non RabbitMQ support in devstack
clint at fewbar.com
Wed Jun 17 22:50:42 UTC 2015
Excerpts from Kyle Mestery's message of 2015-06-17 13:54:06 -0700:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
> > Excerpts from Dan Smith's message of 2015-06-17 13:16:46 -0700:
> > > > Every change like this makes it harder for newcomers to participate.
> > > > Frankly, it makes it harder for everyone because it means there are
> > > > more moving parts, but in this specific case many of the people
> > > > involved in these messaging drivers are relatively new, so I point
> > > > that out.
> > >
> > > I dunno about this. Having devstack migrate away from being an
> > > opinionated tool for getting a test environment up that was eminently
> > > readable to what it is today hasn't really helped anyone, IMHO. Having
> > > some clear plug points such that we _can_ plug in the bits we need for
> > > testing without having every possible option be embedded in the core
> > > seems like goodness to me. I'd like to get back to the days where people
> > > actually knew what was going on in devstack. That helps participation
> > too.
> > >
> > > I think having devstack deploy what the 90% (or, being honest, 99%) are
> > > running, with the ability to plug in the 1% bits when necessary is much
> > > more in line with what the goal of the tool is.
> > >
> > > > The already difficult task of setting up sufficient
> > > > functional tests has now turned into "figure out devstack", too.
> > >
> > > Yep, my point exactly. I think having clear points where you can setup
> > > your thing and get it plugged in is much easier.
> > I'm not questioning the goal, or even the approach. But we spent
> > the last cycle building up the teams working on these drivers in
> > Oslo, and at the summit several groups were (re)motivated to be
> > working on the code. Now the devstack team is yanking the rug out
> > from under all of that work with this patch.
> > I'm asking that we not set a tight deadline on doing this right
> > away, to give everyone who wasn't involved in those discussions
> > about the changes in devstack to understand what's actually involved
> > in recovering from being kicked out of tree.
> I think people are overreacting here. Adding pluggable devstack support is
> actually quite easy, and will honestly make the life of these new messaging
> developers much easier. It's worth the time to go down this path from the
> start for both sides. I don't see it as kicking them out, but enabling them.
Kyle, the point is that the relationship is delicate, and this patch _IS_
deleting the code that those contributors would use to interface with
our testing system. The reaction isn't to how hard this is or whether
or not it is a good idea. It is a reaction to the heavy handed approach
which gives no consideration to the amount of time it will take for
those contributors to establish their own external plugin on top of the
already extremely daunting task of setting up gate/check jobs.
More information about the OpenStack-dev