[openstack-dev] [all][oslo][neutron] Managing oslo-incubator modules after project split
mestery at mestery.com
Mon Dec 15 17:46:46 UTC 2014
Option 2 works for me, thanks for figuring this out Ihar and Doug!
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Doug Wiegley <dougw at a10networks.com>
> Hi all,
> Ihar and I discussed this on IRC, and are going forward with option 2
> unless someone has a big problem with it.
> On 12/15/14, 8:22 AM, "Doug Wiegley" <dougw at a10networks.com> wrote:
> >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.
> >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:
> >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
> >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev