Open Stack

Hi Ihar,

I’m actually in favor of option 2, but it implies a few things about your
time, and I wanted to chat with you before presuming.

Maintenance can not involve breaking changes. At this point, the co-gate
will block it.  Also, oslo graduation changes will have to be made in the
services repos first, and then Neutron.

Thanks,
doug


On 12/15/14, 6:15 AM, "Ihar Hrachyshka" <ihrachys at redhat.com> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA512
>
>Hi all,
>
>the question arose recently in one of reviews for neutron-*aas repos
>to remove all oslo-incubator code from those repos since it's
>duplicated in neutron main repo. (You can find the link to the review
>at the end of the email.)
>
>Brief hostory: neutron repo was recently split into 4 pieces (main,
>neutron-fwaas, neutron-lbaas, and neutron-vpnaas). The split resulted
>in each repository keeping their own copy of
>neutron/openstack/common/... tree (currently unused in all
>neutron-*aas repos that are still bound to modules from main repo).
>
>As a oslo liaison for the project, I wonder what's the best way to
>manage oslo-incubator files. We have several options:
>
>1. just kill all the neutron/openstack/common/ trees from neutron-*aas
>repositories and continue using modules from main repo.
>
>2. kill all duplicate modules from neutron-*aas repos and leave only
>those that are used in those repos but not in main repo.
>
>3. fully duplicate all those modules in each of four repos that use them.
>
>I think option 1. is a straw man, since we should be able to introduce
>new oslo-incubator modules into neutron-*aas repos even if they are
>not used in main repo.
>
>Option 2. is good when it comes to synching non-breaking bug fixes (or
>security fixes) from oslo-incubator, in that it will require only one
>sync patch instead of e.g. four. At the same time there may be
>potential issues when synchronizing updates from oslo-incubator that
>would break API and hence require changes to each of the modules that
>use it. Since we don't support atomic merges for multiple projects in
>gate, we will need to be cautious about those updates, and we will
>still need to leave neutron-*aas repos broken for some time (though
>the time may be mitigated with care).
>
>Option 3. is vice versa - in theory, you get total decoupling, meaning
>no oslo-incubator updates in main repo are expected to break
>neutron-*aas repos, but bug fixing becomes a huge PITA.
>
>I would vote for option 2., for two reasons:
>- - most oslo-incubator syncs are non-breaking, and we may effectively
>apply care to updates that may result in potential breakage (f.e.
>being able to trigger an integrated run for each of neutron-*aas repos
>with the main sync patch, if there are any concerns).
>- - it will make oslo liaison life a lot easier. OK, I'm probably too
>selfish on that. ;)
>- - it will make stable maintainers life a lot easier. The main reason
>why stable maintainers and distributions like recent oslo graduation
>movement is that we don't need to track each bug fix we need in every
>project, and waste lots of cycles on it. Being able to fix a bug in
>one place only is *highly* anticipated. [OK, I'm quite selfish on that
>one too.]
>- - it's a delusion that there will be no neutron-main syncs that will
>break neutron-*aas repos ever. There can still be problems due to
>incompatibility between neutron main and neutron-*aas code resulted
>EXACTLY because multiple parts of the same process use different
>versions of the same module.
>
>That said, Doug Wiegley (lbaas core) seems to be in favour of option
>3. due to lower coupling that is achieved in that way. I know that
>lbaas team had a bad experience due to tight coupling to neutron
>project in the past, so I appreciate their concerns.
>
>All in all, we should come up with some standard solution for both
>advanced services that are already split out, *and* upcoming vendor
>plugin shrinking initiative.
>
>The initial discussion is captured at:
>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/141427/
>
>Thanks,
>/Ihar
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>
>iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUju0NAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57n5YH/jA4l5DsLgRpw9gYsoSWVGvh
>apmJ4UlnAKhxzc787XImz1VA+ztSyIwAUdEdcfq3gkinP58q7o48oIXOGjFXaBNq
>6qBePC1hflEqZ85Hm4/i5z51qutjW0dyi4y4C6FHgM5NsEkhbh0QIa/u8Hr4F1q6
>tkr0kDbCbDkiZ8IX1l74VGWQ3QvCNeJkANUg79BqGq+qIVP3BeOHyWqRmpLZFQ6E
>QiUwhiYv5l4HekCEQN8PWisJoqnhbTNjvLBnLD82IitLd5vXnsXfSkxKhv9XeOg/
>czLUCyr/nJg4aw8Qm0DTjnZxS+BBe5De0Ke4zm2AGePgFYcai8YQPtuOfSJDbXk=
>=D6Gn
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----