Open Stack

On 08/03/2012 12:32 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com
> <mailto:markmc at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 10:16 -0500, Monty Taylor wrote:
>     > On 08/03/2012 09:57 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
>     > > On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 17:48 +0300, Gary Kotton wrote:
>     > >> Will you also be fixing the pep8 issues in the common code?
>     > >
>     > > When the pep8 running in openstack-common reports the issue, yes, it
>     > > will make sense to fix it.  Since I have already synchronized
>     nova and
>     > > glance, I'm highly reluctant to make the necessary change.  I'll
>     also
>     > > point out that the particular condition that pep8 is reporting
>     here is
>     > > all over the place in nova and probably also in glance…
>     >
>     > If we keep openstack-common testing against latest pep8 (even when
>     it's
>     > a pita) it should allow us to drop that code into any of the projects
>     > without worrying about which version they've caught up to.
> 
>     Yeah, I'm fine with us using latest pep8.
> 
>     > Also - I hear that one of these days we're going to make a library out
>     > of openstack common ... how's that coming Mark?
> 
>     There are two parts - figuring out which APIs are ready for the
>     backwards compat commitment and sorting out the pure mechanics of doing
>     the library release.
> 
>     I was mostly blocked on the first part and this week took a look at the
>     RPC API to see if it's ready:
> 
>       https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-common/+spec/rpc-api-review
> 
>     The summary from a first review is that it's not too far away, but does
>     need more work. Just doing a thorough review is pretty time consuming,
>     though, nevermind fixing the issues themselves.
> 
>     Talking it over with Russell, we thought it might make sense to tackle
>     the second part of the problem first - if e.g. we're happy with the
>     state of cfg, we could do an initial library release with just that and
>     be happy we have the mechanics sorted out. Then we can iterate through
>     reviews of the other APIs and add them to future releases.
> 
> 
> Are we still planning to have a single monolithic library? I would
> really like for us to consider releasing smaller reusable chunks that
> might be usable/useful in projects other than OpenStack.

I'm fine with supporting either, depending on how interdependent they
are. Main thing is one library == one repo. As long as we stick to that,
it should be a piece of cake. If we want these to be things like
"openstack-common-config" which provides openstack.common.config, then
we'll probably want to hit-it with some namespace packages.

Monty