Open Stack

Some of us are actively watching the thread / participating. I'll make
sure it gets on the TC agenda in the near future.

I think most of the recommendations are quite good, especially on the
client support front for clients / tools within our community.

On 09/30/2015 10:37 PM, Matt Fischer wrote:
> Thanks for summarizing this Mark. What's the best way to get feedback
> about this to the TC? I'd love to see some of the items which I think
> are common sense for anyone who can't just blow away devstack and start
> over to get added for consideration.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Mark Voelker <mvoelker at vmware.com
> <mailto:mvoelker at vmware.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Mark T. Voelker
> 
> 
> 
>     > On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Matt Fischer <matt at mattfischer.com
>     <mailto:matt at mattfischer.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > I agree with John Griffith. I don't have any empirical evidences
>     to back
>     > my "feelings" on that one but it's true that we weren't enable to
>     enable
>     > Cinder v2 until now.
>     >
>     > Which makes me wonder: When can we actually deprecate an API
>     version? I
>     > *feel* we are fast to jump on the deprecation when the replacement
>     isn't
>     > 100% ready yet for several versions.
>     >
>     > --
>     > Mathieu
>     >
>     >
>     > I don't think it's too much to ask that versions can't be
>     deprecated until the new version is 100% working, passing all tests,
>     and the clients (at least python-xxxclients) can handle it without
>     issues. Ideally I'd like to also throw in the criteria that
>     devstack, rally, tempest, and other services are all using and
>     exercising the new API.
>     >
>     > I agree that things feel rushed.
> 
> 
>     FWIW, the TC recently created an assert:follows-standard-deprecation
>     tag.  Ivan linked to a thread in which Thierry asked for input on
>     it, but FYI the final language as it was approved last week [1] is a
>     bit different than originally proposed.  It now requires one release
>     plus 3 linear months of deprecated-but-still-present-in-the-tree as
>     a minimum, and recommends at least two full stable releases for
>     significant features (an entire API version would undoubtedly fall
>     into that bucket).  It also requires that a migration path will be
>     documented.  However to Matt’s point, it doesn’t contain any
>     language that says specific things like:
> 
>     In the case of major API version deprecation:
>     * $oldversion and $newversion must both work with
>     [cinder|nova|whatever]client and openstackclient during the
>     deprecation period.
>     * It must be possible to run $oldversion and $newversion
>     concurrently on the servers to ensure end users don’t have to switch
>     overnight.
>     * Devstack uses $newversion by default.
>     * $newversion works in Tempest/Rally/whatever else.
> 
>     What it *does* do is require that a thread be started here on
>     openstack-operators [2] so that operators can provide feedback.  I
>     would hope that feedback like “I can’t get clients to use it so
>     please don’t remove it yet” would be taken into account by projects,
>     which seems to be exactly what’s happening in this case with Cinder
>     v1.  =)
> 
>     I’d hazard a guess that the TC would be interested in hearing about
>     whether you think that plan is a reasonable one (and given that TC
>     election season is upon us, candidates for the TC probably would too).
> 
>     [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/207467/
>     [2]
>     http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/tags/assert_follows-standard-deprecation.rst#n59
> 
>     At Your Service,
> 
>     Mark T. Voelker
> 
> 
>     >
>     >
>     > __________________________________________________________________________
>     > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>     > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>     > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     OpenStack-operators mailing list
>     OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 


-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net