[openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements
robertc at robertcollins.net
Thu Apr 21 02:09:24 UTC 2016
On 20 April 2016 at 04:47, Clark Boylan <cboylan at sapwetik.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, at 08:14 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-04-19 15:00:24 +0000:
>> > On 2016-04-19 09:10:11 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > We have the global list and the upper constraints list, and both
>> > > are intended to be used to signal to packaging folks what we think
>> > > ought to be used. I'm glad that signaling is working, and maybe
>> > > that means you're right that we don't need to sync the list
>> > > absolutely, just as a set of "compatible" ranges.
>> > [...]
>> > When we were firming up the constraints idea in Vancouver, if my
>> > memory is correct (which it quite often is not these days), part of
>> > the long tail Robert suggested was that once constraints usage in
>> > the CI is widespread we could consider resolving it from individual
>> > requirements lists in participating projects, drop the version
>> > specifiers from the global requirements list entirely and stop
>> > trying to actively synchronize requirement version ranges in
>> > individual projects. I don't recall any objection from those of us
>> > around the table, though it was a small ad-hoc group and we
>> > certainly didn't dig too deeply into the potential caveats that
>> > might imply.
>> I have no memory of that part of the conversation, but I'll take your
>> word for it.
>> If I understand your description correctly, that may be another
>> alternative. Most of the reviews I've been doing are related to the
>> constraints, though, so I'm not really sure it lowers the amount of work
>> I'm seeing.
> This was one of my concerns with constraints when we put them in place.
> Previously we would open requirements and things would break
> periodically and we would address them. With constraints every single
> requirements update whether centralized or decentralized needs to be
> reviewed. It does add quite a bit of overhead.
> The argument at the time was that the time saved by not having the gate
> explode every few weeks would offset the cost of micromanaging every
> constraint update.
I also argued at the time that we should aim for entirely automated
check-and-update. This has stalled on not figuring out how to run e.g.
Neutron unit tests against requirements changes - our coverage is just
too low at the moment to proceed further down the automation path.
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hpe.com>
HP Converged Cloud
More information about the OpenStack-dev