Open Stack

There may be a similar problem managing dependencies on libraries that live outside of either tree. I assume you already decided how to handle that. Are you doing the same thing, and adding the requirements to neutron’s lists?

On Dec 15, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Doug Wiegley <dougw at a10networks.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Ihar and I discussed this on IRC, and are going forward with option 2
> unless someone has a big problem with it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Doug
> 
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 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-----
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev