Open Stack

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:

> On 01/03/2014 03:30 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net
>> <mailto:sean at dague.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 01/03/2014 02:44 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Joshua Harlow
>>         <harlowja at yahoo-inc.com <mailto:harlowja at yahoo-inc.com>
>>         <mailto:harlowja at yahoo-inc.com
>>
>>         <mailto: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?
>>
>>
>>     Requirements wedging.
>>
>>     Because of entry points any library that specifies any dependencies
>>     that OpenStack components specify, at incompatible levels, means
>>     that library effectively puts a hold on the rest of OpenStack and
>>     prevents it from being able to move forward.
>>
>>
>> I have considered changing stevedore so it uses entry points to find
>> plugins, but then handles the import itself specifically to eliminate
>> the requirements checks for plugin dependencies enforced by
>> pkg_resources. So far I haven't convinced myself that it's a good idea,
>> but I'm open to discussion. :-)
>>
>
> Well, about 1/3 of our requirements wedges are actually completely entry
> point related. They were a class of problems we never had before we
> switched to entry points.
>

That's what made me think of the solution. But isn't setuptools in fact
telling us that somehow the versions of things we expected to have
installed are no longer installed and so something *is* broken (even if the
versions of the installed libraries work together).

Doug



>
> This entire taskflow block wouldn't have been a problem if it wasn't
> loaded with entry points.


>
>         -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/abba4189/attachment.html>