Open Stack

We have started this work. I've been working on:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444718/

Which will do requirement checks, as specified in the Pike PTG ehterpad for
Tuesday morning:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/relmgt-stable-requirements-ptg-pike (line
40+).

Once done, Tony and I were going to start testing it on the experimental
pipeline for Swift and Nova.

Regards,
Matt

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
wrote:

> Excerpts from Clark Boylan's message of 2017-04-19 08:10:43 -0700:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017, at 05:54 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> > > Hoy,
> > >
> > > So Gnocchi gate is all broken (agaiiiin) because it depends on "pbr"
> and
> > > some new release of oslo.* depends on pbr!=2.1.0.
> > >
> > > Neither Gnocchi nor Oslo cares about whatever bug there is in pbr 2.1.0
> > > that got in banished by requirements Gods. It does not prevent it to be
> > > used e.g. to install the software or get version information. But it
> > > does break anything that is not in OpenStack because well, pip installs
> > > the latest pbr (2.1.0) and then oslo.* is unhappy about it.
> >
> > It actually breaks everything, including OpenStack. Shade and others are
> > affected by this as well. The specific problem here is that PBR is a
> > setup_requires which means it gets installed by easy_install before
> > anything else. This means that the requirements restrictions are not
> > applied to it (neither are the constraints). So you get latest PBR from
> > easy_install then later when something checks the requirements
> > (pkg_resources console script entrypoints?) they break because latest
> > PBR isn't allowed.
> >
> > We need to stop pinning PBR and more generally stop pinning any
> > setup_requires (there are a few more now since setuptools itself is
> > starting to use that to list its deps rather than bundling them).
> >
> > > So I understand the culprit is probably pip installation scheme, and we
> > > can blame him until we fix it. I'm also trying to push pbr 2.2.0 to
> > > avoid the entire issue.
> >
> > Yes, a new release of PBR undoing the "pin" is the current sane step
> > forward for fixing this particular issue. Monty also suggested that we
> > gate global requirements changes on requiring changes not pin any
> > setup_requires.
> >
> > > But for the future, could we stop updating the requirements in oslo
> libs
> > > for no good reason? just because some random OpenStack project hit a
> bug
> > > somewhere?
> > >
> > > For example, I've removed requirements update on tooz¹ for more than a
> > > year now, which did not break *anything* in the meantime, proving that
> > > this process is giving more problem than solutions. Oslo libs doing
> that
> > > automatic update introduce more pain for all consumers than anything
> (at
> > > least not in OpenStack).
> >
> > You are likely largely shielded by the constraints list here which is
> > derivative of the global requirements list. Basically by using
> > constraints you get distilled global requirements and even without being
> > part of the requirements updates you'd be shielded from breakages when
> > installed via something like devstack or other deployment method using
> > constraints.
> >
> > > So if we care about Oslo users outside OpenStack, I beg us to stop this
> > > crazyness. If we don't, we'll just spend time getting rid of Oslo over
> > > the long term…
> >
> > I think we know from experience that just stopping (eg reverting to the
> > situation we had before requirements and constraints) would lead to
> > sadness. Installations would frequently be impossible due to some
> > unresolvable error in dependency resolution. Do you have some
> > alternative in mind? Perhaps we loosen the in project requirements and
> > explicitly state that constraints are known to work due to testing and
> > users should use constraints? That would give users control to manage
> > their own constraints list too if they wish. Maybe we do this in
> > libraries while continuing to be more specific in applications?
>
> At the meeting in Austin, the requirements team accepted my proposal
> to stop syncing requirements updates into projects, as described
> in https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ocata-requirements-notes
>
> We haven't been able to find anyone to work on the implementation,
> though. I is my understanding that Tony did contact the Telemetry
> and Swift teams, who are most interested in this area of change,
> about devoting some resources to the tasks outlined in the proposal.
>
> Doug
>
> >
> > >
> > > My 2c,
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > ¹ Unless some API changed in a dep and we needed to raise the dep,
> > > obviously.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Julien Danjou
> > > # Free Software hacker
> > > # https://julien.danjou.info
> >
> > I don't have all the answers, but am fairly certain the situation we
> > have today is better than the one from several years ago. It is just not
> > perfect. I think we are better served by refining the current setup or
> > replacing it with something better but not by reverting.
> >
> > Clark
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20170420/12dc3b43/attachment.html>