Open Stack

Michał Jastrzębski wrote:
> So reason I don't really like having 2 different versions of openstack
> is because it's messy. That means having optional 2 different paths of
> deployment, and while they are mostly the same, there are subtle
> differences. My initial patchset actually did deploy 2 versions of
> openstack, but that require manual labor of configuring build config
> and lots of "if liberty, else" which lowered both code readibility and
> reliability, as it's additional logic. Then this is policy decision as
> we, kolla community, generally want to deploy N relase, so liberty
> deploys liberty and so forth. If we create 2 deploys per release, that
> will cause mess. Another thing is we specifically don't want people to
> deploy current stable/liberty because it is well, not stable. And it's
> not stable in potentially very destructive way. We want to discourage
> anyone from deploying current stable liberty to a point of actually
> removing this branch in favor of mitaka code.
>
> Doug, while I understand your reluctance, it is ugly thing, this is
> where we are and our first (I don't know if I can speak for everyone,
> but at least for me) priority is quality of deployment we provide.
> Bending the rules and policies is worth it if the improvement is this
> big, and potentially can save people from catastrophic failure and
> data loss.

The thing is, supporting two versions of OpenStack in a single branch of 
Kolla *is* what you're doing here, only in catastrophic mode. You are 
basically rebuilding a liberty branch from mitaka code + 1-3 patches, 
because stable/mitaka is closer where you want to be than 
stable/liberty. So in essence you are using a single branch with 
conditionals, you are just using branches rather than if statements.

My main gripe is that I don't see why this situation would not happen 
again, and why the same solution wouldn't be have to be applied again... 
Could you explain the steps you are taking that would prevent such a 
situation to happen in the future, to the point where maintaining a 
single code base wouldn't be a better solution ?

I don't mind that much for stable/liberty, since it predates the 
"officialness" of Kolla: I'm fine with any solution there. I'm more 
concerned about stable/mitaka and going forward. Stable branches are 
supposed to be known quantities, slow moving and safe changes. What 
you're proposing wouldn't be an option for stable/mitaka -- so I'd like 
to make sure we don't find ourselves in a similar situation in the future.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)