[openstack-dev] [oslo] [keystone] rolling dogpile.core into dogpile.cache, removing namespace packaging (PLEASE REVIEW)
zigo at debian.org
Tue May 31 07:19:40 UTC 2016
On 05/31/2016 12:17 AM, Mike Bayer wrote:
> Hi all -
> Just a heads up what's happening for dogpile.cache, in version 0.6.0 we
> are rolling the functionality of the dogpile.core package into
> dogpile.cache itself, and retiring the use of namespace package naming
> for dogpile.cache.
> Towards retiring the use of namespace packaging, the magic
> "declare_namespace() / extend_path()" logic is being removed from the
> file dogpile/__init__.py from dogpile.cache, and the "namespace_package"
> directive being removed from setup.py.
> However, currently, the plan is to leave alone entirely the
> "dogpile.core" package as is, and to no longer use the name
> "dogpile.core" within dogpile.cache at all; the constructs that it
> previously imported from "dogpile.core" it now just imports from
> "dogpile" and "dogpile.util" from within the dogpile.cache package.
> The caveat here is that Python environments that have dogpile.cache
> 0.5.7 or earlier installed will also have dogpile.core 0.4.1 installed
> as well, and dogpile.core *does* still contain the namespace package
> verbiage as before. From our testing, we don't see there being any
> problem with this, however, I know there are people on this list who are
> vastly more familiar than I am with namespace packaging and I would
> invite them to comment on this as well as on the gerrit review  (the
> gerrit invites anyone with a Github account to register and comment).
> Note that outside of the Openstack world, there are a very small number
> of applications that make use of dopgile.core directly. From our
> grepping we can find no mentions of "dogpile.core" in any Openstack
> requirements files. For these applications, if a Python environment
> already has dogpile.core installed, this would continue to be used;
> however dogpile.cache also includes a file dogpile/core.py which sets up
> a compatible namespace, so that applications which list only
> dogpile.cache in their requirements but make use of "dogpile.core"
> constructs will continue to work as before.
> I would ask that anyone reading this to please alert me to anyone, any
> project, or any announcement medium which may be necessary in order to
> ensure that anyone who needs to be made aware of these changes are aware
> of them and have vetted them ahead of time. I would like to release
> dogpile.cache 0.6.0 by the end of the week if possible. I will send
> this email a few more times to the list to make sure that it is seen.
FYI, in Debian, there's no direct dependency on dogpile.core. So this
will be a graceful change, I'll just upload the new dogpile.cache and
ask for the removal of dogpile.core.
Will it "just work" for all of OpenStack, through oslo.cache? Will it
also work with Mitaka?
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
More information about the OpenStack-dev