Open Stack

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at yahoo-inc.com>wrote:

> Ok, I think I'm fine with that (although not really sure what that
> entails).
>
> What does the living under the 'oslo program' change?
>
> Does that entail getting sucked into the incubator (which seems to be what
> your graduating link is about).
>
> I don't think its a good idea for taskflow to be in the 'incubator'.
> Taskflow is meant to be just like any other 3rd party library.
>

No, as we discussed in Hong Kong, there's no reason to add taskflow to the
incubator.

Whether or not it needs to be part of the oslo program (or any other
program) is a separate question. I'm not opposed to bringing it in, but
didn't see the point when it came up at the summit.

I understand that moving taskflow into oslo would avoid the policy decision
we have in place to not do symmetric gating on unreleased versions of
things not "owned" by the OpenStack project. However, I don't know if we
want to be testing against the git head of libraries no matter where they
live. As fungi pointed out on IRC, gating against pre-release versions of
libraries may allow us to reach a state where the software works when
installed from git, but not from the released packages.

It seems safer to gate changes to libraries against the apps' trunk (to
avoid making backwards-incompatible changes), and then gate changes to the
apps against the released libraries (to ensure they work with something
available to be packaged by the distros). There are lots and lots of
version numbers available to us, so I see no problem with releasing new
versions of libraries frequently.

Am I missing something that makes that not work?

Doug



>
> Or were u mainly referring to the 'devstack-gate integration' section?
>
> I'd be interested in hearing dougs opinion here (cc'd him) as
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-oslo-splitting-the-incubator
> would seem to cause even more of these types of new 3rd party libraries to
> appear on pypi (and therefore causing similar issues of transitive
> dependencies as taskflow).
>
> Will bug u on #openstack-infra soon :-)
>
> On 1/3/14, 9:05 AM, "Sean Dague" <sean at dague.net> wrote:
>
> >On 01/03/2014 11:37 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> >> So taskflow was tested with the version of sqlalchemy that was available
> >> and in the requirements at the time of its 0.1 release (taskflow syncs
> >> it's requirements from the same global requirements). From what I
> >> remember this is the same requirement that everyone else is bound to:
> >>
> >> SQLAlchemy>=0.7.8,<=0.7.99
> >>
> >> I can unpin it if this is desired (the openstack requirements repo has
> >> the same version restriction). What would be recommended here? As more
> >> code moves to pypi reusable libraries (oslo.db when it arrives comes to
> >> mind) I think this will be hit more often. Let's come up with a good
> >> strategy to follow.
> >>
> >> Thoughts??
> >
> >So I think that given taskflow's usage, it really needs to live under
> >the Oslo program, and follow the same rules that are applied to oslo
> >libraries. (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo#Graduation)
> >
> >Which means it needs to be part of the integrated gate, so we can update
> >it's requirements globally. It also means that changes to it will be
> >gated on full devstack runs.
> >
> >We can work through the details on #openstack-infra. ttx has been doing
> >the same for oslo.rootwrap this week.
> >
> >       -Sean
> >
> >--
> >Sean Dague
> >Samsung Research America
> >sean at dague.net / sean.dague at samsung.com
> >http://dague.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140103/70015bd7/attachment.html>