Open Stack

>> Just an FYI that I've submitted a pull request [1] to replace Celery
>> with oslo.messaging.
>
> wow. That was quick!
>
> /me is impressed

Ha! Just trying to put the polish on! Thanks for the feedback and hope it is a step in the right direction. I'll look to add testing for it on Monday or before to take it out of 'in progress'.


> Since you jumped on that - I went ahead and jumped on a pbr-ification
> patch for you. ...

Thanks for the assist! I think we have some competing CRs out there but we'll sort those out once the oslo.messaging CR goes in...then we'll be able to remove Celery from the requirements once and for all!

Thanks again,
John


________________________________________
From: Monty Taylor [mordred at inaugust.com]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 10:11 AM
To: John Wood; 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 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
>