Open Stack

On 12/06/2013 08:35 AM, John Wood wrote:
> Hello folks,
> 
> Just an FYI that I've submitted a pull request [1] to replace Celery
> with oslo.messaging.

wow. That was quick!

/me is impressed

Since you jumped on that - I went ahead and jumped on a pbr-ification
patch for you. It may not work yet - I'm on weird network and having
trouble install python things into virtualenvs:

  https://review.openstack.org/60551
  https://review.openstack.org/60552


> I've tagged it as a work in progress per this note:
> 
> "Please review this CR, which replaces Celery with oslo.messaging
> components. I've verified that this works in my local environment,
> but I still need to add unit testing. I also need to verify that it
> works correctly with an HA Rabbit MQ cluster, as that is a hard
> requirement for Barbican."
> 
> Special thanks to Mark McLoughlin and Sylvain Bauza for pointing me
> to very useful links here [2] and here [3] respectively.
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/60427/ [2]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39929 [3]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57880
> 
> Thanks, John
> 
> ________________________________________ From: Monty Taylor
> [mordred at inaugust.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 8:35 PM To:
> Mark McLoughlin; Douglas Mendizabal Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing
> List (not for usage questions); openstack-tc at lists.openstack.org;
> barbican at lists.rackspace.com Subject: Re: [openstack-tc]
> [openstack-dev] Incubation Request for Barbican
> 
> On 12/06/2013 01:53 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:37 +0000, Douglas Mendizabal wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I agree that this is concerning. And that what's concerning
>>>> isn't so much that the project did something different, but
>>>> rather that choice was apparently made because the project
>>>> thought it was perfectly fine for them to ignore what other
>>>> OpenStack projects do and go off and do its own thing.
>>>> 
>>>> We can't make this growth in the number of OpenStack projects
>>>> work if each project goes off randomly and does its own thing
>>>> without any concern for the difficulties that creates.
>>>> 
>>>> Mark.
>>> 
>>> Hi Mark,
>>> 
>>> You may have missed it, but barbican has added a blueprint to
>>> change our queue to use oslo.messaging [1]
>>> 
>>> I just wanted to clarify that we didn’t choose Celery because we
>>> thought that “it was perfectly fine to ignore what other
>>> OpenStack projects do”. Incubation has been one of our goals
>>> since the project began.  If you’ve taken the time to look at our
>>> code, you’ve seen that we have been using oslo.config this whole
>>> time.  We chose Celery because it was
>>> 
>>> a) Properly packaged like any other python library, so we could
>>> just pip-install it. b) Well documented c) Well tested in
>>> production environments
>>> 
>>> At the time none of those were true for oslo.messaging.  In
>>> fact, oslo.messgaging still cannot be pip-installed as of today.
>>> Obviously, had we know that using oslo.messaging is hard
>>> requirement in advance, we would have chosen it despite its poor
>>> distribution story.
>> 
>> I do sympathise, but it's also true is that all other projects
>> were using the oslo-incubator RPC code at the time you chose
>> Celery.
>> 
>> I think all the verbiage in this thread about celery is just to 
>> reinforce that we need to be very sure that new projects feel a 
>> responsibility to fit closely in with the rest of OpenStack. It's
>> not about technical requirements so much as social responsibility.
>> 
>> But look - I think you've reacted well to the concern and hopefully
>> if it feels like there was an overreaction that you can understand
>> the broader thing we're trying to get at here.
> 
> I agree. I think you've done an excellent job in responding to it -
> and I appreciate that. We're trying to be clearer about expectations
> moving forward, which I hope this thread in some part helps with.
> 
> Monty
>