Open Stack

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/02/2013 08:53 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Doug Hellmann
>>>> > <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com <mailto:doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >     On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Russell Bryant <
>>>> rbryant at redhat.com
>>>> >     <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >         On 11/29/2013 01:39 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>> >         > We have a review up (
>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/58297/)
>>>> >         to add
>>>> >         > some features to the notification system in the oslo
>>>> >         incubator. THe
>>>> >         > notification system is being moved into oslo.messaging, and
>>>> so
>>>> >         we have
>>>> >         > the question of whether to accept the patch to the incubated
>>>> >         version,
>>>> >         > move it to oslo.messaging, or carry it in both.
>>>> >         >
>>>> >         > As I say in the review, from a practical standpoint I think
>>>> we
>>>> >         can't
>>>> >         > really support continued development in both places. Given
>>>> the
>>>> >         number of
>>>> >         > times the topic of "just make everything a library" has come
>>>> >         up, I would
>>>> >         > prefer that we focus our energy on completing the transition
>>>> >         for a given
>>>> >         > module or library once it the process starts. We also need
>>>> to
>>>> >         avoid
>>>> >         > feature drift, and provide a clear incentive for projects to
>>>> >         update to
>>>> >         > the new library.
>>>> >         >
>>>> >         > Based on that, I would like to say that we do not add new
>>>> >         features to
>>>> >         > incubated code after it starts moving into a library, and
>>>> only
>>>> >         provide
>>>> >         > "stable-like" bug fix support until integrated projects are
>>>> >         moved over
>>>> >         > to the graduated library (although even that is up for
>>>> >         discussion).
>>>> >         > After all integrated projects that use the code are using
>>>> the
>>>> >         library
>>>> >         > instead of the incubator, we can delete the module(s) from
>>>> the
>>>> >         incubator.
>>>> >         >
>>>> >         > Before we make this policy official, I want to solicit
>>>> >         feedback from the
>>>> >         > rest of the community and the Oslo core team.
>>>> >
>>>> >         +1 in general.
>>>> >
>>>> >         You may want to make "after it starts moving into a library"
>>>> more
>>>> >         specific, though.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >     I think my word choice is probably what threw Sandy off, too.
>>>> >
>>>> >     How about "after it has been moved into a library with at least a
>>>> >     release candidate published"?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, that's better.  That gives a specific bit of criteria for when the
>>>> switch is flipped.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >          One approach could be to reflect this status in the
>>>> >         MAINTAINERS file.  Right now there is a status field for each
>>>> >         module in
>>>> >         the incubator:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >          S: Status, one of the following:
>>>> >               Maintained:  Has an active maintainer
>>>> >               Orphan:      No current maintainer, feel free to step
>>>> up!
>>>> >               Obsolete:    Replaced by newer code, or a dead end, or
>>>> >         out-dated
>>>> >
>>>> >         It seems that the types of code we're talking about should
>>>> just be
>>>> >         marked as Obsolete.  Obsolete code should only get stable-like
>>>> >         bug fixes.
>>>> >
>>>> >         That would mean marking 'rpc' and 'notifier' as Obsolete
>>>> (currently
>>>> >         listed as Maintained).  I think that is accurate, though.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >     Good point.
>>>>
>>>> So, to clarify, possible flows would be:
>>>>
>>>> 1) An API moving to a library as-is, like rootwrap
>>>>
>>>>    Status: Maintained
>>>>    -> Status: Graduating (short term)
>>>>    -> Code removed from oslo-incubator once library is released
>>>>
>>>> 2) An API being replaced with a better one, like rpc being replaced by
>>>> oslo.messaging
>>>>
>>>>    Status: Maintained
>>>>    -> Status: Obsolete (once an RC of a replacement lib has been
>>>> released)
>>>>    -> Code removed from oslo-incubator once all integrated projects have
>>>> been migrated off of the obsolete code
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does that match your view?
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > I also added a "Graduating" status as an indicator for code in that
>>>> > intermediate phase where there are 2 copies to be maintained. I hope
>>>> we
>>>> > don't have to use it very often, but it's best to be explicit.
>>>> >
>>>> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59373/
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So is messaging in 'graduating' since it isn't used by all core projects
>>> yet (nova - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39929/)?
>>>
>>
>> Graduation is a status within the oslo project, not the other projects.
>> We can't control adoption downstream, so I am trying to set a reasonable
>> policy for maintenance until we have an official release.
>>
>
> Although oslo cannot fully control downstream adaption, they can help
> facilitate that process, we are all in the same project after all. I don't
> think having some adoption metrics for core projects tied into an oslo
> status should be too much of an additional burden.  From the downstream
> point of view, I see the migration to a library as the last step of an
> oslo-incubator sync. And as we have have recently seen, that process is
> rarely initiated by the downstream project.
>

Sure, but that's what the "obsolete" status already represents. The new
status is just for the period of time when we are working on moving the
code into a library in a separate repo, as an indicator for contributors
who may not be aware of that work.



>
>
>> Graduating means there is a git repo with a library but the library has
>> no releases yet.
>>
>> Obsolete means there is a library, but we are providing a grace period
>> for adoption during which critical issues in the incubated version of the
>> code will be accepted -- but no features.
>>
>
> Thanks for the clarification. To make sure I am getting this right: RPC in
> oslo-incubator is considered obsolete, since we have oslo.messaging, and
> the only way Sandy can get his patch used by nova is to help move nova to
> oslo.messaging?
>

In the general case, it is correct to say that new features would need to
make it to oslo.messaging at this point. In this specific case the notifier
is a plugin and so it could be released in any number of ways. The
notification subscription classes are a better example of a feature that is
being added to oslo.messaging that would be more difficult to use until it
lands there.

Doug
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131202/a7dc9087/attachment.html>