[openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

Ivan Kolodyazhny e0ne at e0ne.info
Wed Sep 30 11:29:14 UTC 2015


Sean,

openstack client supports Cinder API v2 since Liberty. What it the right
way ti fix grenade?

Regards,
Ivan Kolodyazhny,
Web Developer

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:

> On 09/29/2015 01:32 PM, Mark Voelker wrote:
> >
> > Mark T. Voelker
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Matt Fischer <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
>
> I would agree that the amount of breaks even in our own system has been
> substantial here, and I'm personally feeling we should probably revert
> the devstack change that turns off v1. It looks like it wasn't just one
> client that got caught in this, but most of them.
>
> This feels like this transition has been too much stick, and not enough
> carrot. IIRC openstack client wouldn't work with cinder v2 until a
> couple of months ago, as that made me do some weird things in grenade in
> building volumes. [1]
>
>         -Sean
>
> 1.
>
> https://github.com/openstack-dev/grenade/blob/master/projects/70_cinder/resources.sh#L40-L41
>
> --
> Sean Dague
> http://dague.net
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150930/eb7ecc89/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list