Open Stack

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 15:24 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> We can avoid adding to the problem by putting each new library in its
>> own package. We still want the Oslo name attached for libraries that
>> are really only meant to be used by OpenStack projects, and so we need
>> a naming convention. I'm not entirely happy with the "crammed
>> together" approach for oslotest and oslosphinx. At one point Dims and
>> I talked about using a prefix "oslo_" instead of just "oslo", so we
>> would have "oslo_db", "oslo_i18n", etc. That's also a bit ugly,
>> though. Opinions?
>
> Uggh :)

Indeed. I'm not even allowed to name pets here at home, so if someone
else wants to propose a standard please do. :-)

>
>> Given the number of problems we have now (I help about 1 dev per week
>> unbreak their system),
>
> I've seen you do this - kudos on your patience.
>
>>  I think we should also consider renaming the
>> existing libraries to not use the namespace package. That isn't a
>> trivial change, since it will mean updating every consumer as well as
>> the packaging done by distros. If we do decide to move them, I will
>> need someone to help put together a migration plan. Does anyone want
>> to volunteer to work on that?
>
> One thing to note for any migration plan on this - we should use a new
> pip package name for the new version so people with e.g.
>
>    oslo.config>=1.2.0
>
> don't automatically get updated to a version which has the code in a
> different place. You should need to change to e.g.
>
>   osloconfig>=1.4.0

Yes, good point.

>
>> Before we make any changes, it would be good to know how bad this
>> problem still is. Do developers still see issues on clean systems, or
>> are all of the problems related to updating devstack boxes? Are people
>> figuring out how to fix or work around the situation on their own? Can
>> we make devstack more aggressive about deleting oslo libraries before
>> re-installing them? Are there other changes we can make that would be
>> less invasive?
>
> I don't have any great insight, but hope we can figure something out.
> It's crazy to think that even though namespace packages appear to work
> pretty well initially, it might end up being so unworkable we would need
> to switch.
>
> Mark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev