<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For Windows related projects such as os-win and networking-hyperv,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">we decided to keep the lower constraints job but remove indirect</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">dependencies from the lower-constraints.txt file.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This made it much easier to maintain and it allows us to at least cover</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">direct dependencies. I suggest considering this approach instead of</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">completely dropping the lower constraints job, whenever possible.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another option might be to make it non-voting while it’s getting fixed.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lucian Petrut</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;padding:0in"><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org">Jeremy Stanley</a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:52 AM<br>
<b>To: </b><a href="mailto:openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org">openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [all][tc] Dropping lower-constraints testing from all projects</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2021-01-20 00:09:39 +0100 (+0100), Thomas Goirand wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">[...]</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> Something I don't understand: why can't we use an older version of</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> pip, if the problem is the newer pip resolver? Or can't the</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> current pip be patched to fix things? It's not as if there was no</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> prior art... Maybe I'm missing the big picture?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">[...]</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To get to the heart of the matter, when using older versions of pip</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">it was just quietly installing different versions of packages than</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">we asked it to, and versions of transitive dependencies which</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">directly conflicted with the versions other dependencies said they</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">required. When pip finally (very recently) implemented a coherent</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">dependency solver, it started alerting us directly to this fact. We</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">could certainly find a way to hide our heads in the sand and go back</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">to testing with old pip and pretending we knew what was being tested</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">there, but the question is whether what we were actually testing</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">that way was worthwhile enough to try to continue doing it, now that</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">we have proof it wasn't what we were wanting to test.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The challenge with actually testing what we wanted has always been</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">that there's many hundreds of packages we depend on and, short of</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">writing one ourselves, no tool available to find a coherent set of</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">versions of them which satisfy the collective lower bounds. The way</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">pip works, it wants to always solve for the newest possible</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">versions which satisfy an aggregate set of version ranges, and what</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">we'd want for lower bounds checking is the inverse of that.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jeremy Stanley</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>