Open Stack

On Dec 16, 2014, at 5:13 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys at redhat.com> wrote:

> Signed PGP part
> On 15/12/14 18:57, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> I guess the idea is to keep in neutron-*aas only those oslo-incubator
> modules that are used there solely (=not used in main repo).

How are the *aas packages installed? Are they separate libraries or applications that are installed on top of neutron? Or are their files copied into the neutron namespace?

> 
> I think requirements are a bit easier and should track all direct
> dependencies in each of the repos, so that in case main repo decides
> to drop one, neutron-*aas repos are not broken.
> 
> For requirements, it's different because there is no major burden due
> to duplicate entries in repos.
> 
> >
> > 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:
> >>>
> > 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
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev
> >> mailing list OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
>