Thanks Daniel, what do you propose as the next step? Concerning Cotyledon, indeed, the number of active maintainers should be one of our considerations in our research of alternatives for oslo.service. However, I'd highlight the fact that the latest PR (authored by Takashi) was merged one day after its proposal, so the maintainer looks active and reactive: https://github.com/sileht/cotyledon/pull/64 If we chose Cotyledon as an alternative to oslo.service, oslo maintainers may become a bit more involved in Cotyledon, like Takashi did 2 months ago. That seems like a good compromise. Both teams can benefit from this move. I'd also highlight the fact that Cotyledon was designed with an Openstack context in mind. It was designed to be an alternative to oslo.service. We should also consider the compatibility between APIs of both libraries. The migration would be cheap in comparison to using another alternative to oslo.service. IMO, It would be hard to find a better alternative than that. Le lun. 10 juin 2024 à 17:28, Julia Kreger <juliaashleykreger@gmail.com> a écrit :
Dmitry, that is an excellent callout. We ideally need to limit single points of failure in our codebase and dependencies where reasonably possible. We need to be mindful of the ability to remedy security issues should they be discovered.
-Julia
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 7:33 AM Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur@protonmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
If we go with this proposal (which sounds reasonable), we need to carefully look at cotyledon's maintenance. It seems to be on life support by only one volunteer: https://github.com/sileht/cotyledon/commits/main/
Dmitry
On 6/10/24 11:09 AM, Daniel Bengtsson wrote:
Hi there,
In the project to remove eventlet from openstack[1], we need to adapt oslo.service. The oslo.service project is strongly linked to eventlet, so rather than adapting the project, it would be wiser to deprecate it and replace it with cotyledon and futurist. The cotyledon project was created by openstack maintainers to replace oslo.service. It is already used in openstack by the telemetry project, for example. The oslo.service project has been created on top of eventlet to offer two main functionalities, periodic tasks and workers process management. The first feature has been replaced by another library called futurist[2] and the second is surpassed by cotyledon. More details in the project readme[3] about the difference with oslo.service. I would like to have your feedback and opinion on the deprecation of olso.service and it's replacement by cotyledon and futurist. In any case, we'll have to adapt the project, which is why replacing oslo.service with cotyledon seems to me the best solution, rather than having two similar projects doing the same thing.
[1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/902585 [2] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/futurist/ [3] https://github.com/sileht/cotyledon/blob/main/README.rst
-- Daniel Bengtsson Software Engineer
-- Hervé Beraud Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat irc: hberaud https://github.com/4383/