Open Stack

On 11/24/2014 03:11 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Dan Smith wrote:
>>> 3. vish brought up one draw back of versioned objects: the difficulty in
>>> cherry picking commits for stable branches - Is this a show stopper?.
>>
>> After some discussion with some of the interested parties, we're
>> planning to add a third .z element to the version numbers and use that
>> to handle backports in the same way that we do for RPC:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134623/
>>
>>> Next steps:
>>> - Jay suggested making a second spec that would lay out what it would
>>> look like if we used google protocol buffers.
>>> - Dan: do you need some help in making this happen, do we need some
>>> volunteers?
>>
>> I'm not planning to look into this, especially since we discussed it a
>> couple years ago when deciding to do what we're currently doing. If
>> someone else does, creates a thing that is demonstrably more useful than
>> what we have, and provides a migration plan, then cool. Otherwise, I'm
>> not really planning to stop what I'm doing at the moment.
>>
>>> - Are there any other concrete things we can do to get this usable by
>>> other projects in a timely manner?
>>
>> To be honest, since the summit, I've not done anything with the current
>> oslo spec, given the potential for doing something different that was
>> raised. I know that cinder folks (at least) are planning to start
>> copying code into their tree to get moving.
>>
>> I think we need a decision to either (a) dump what we've got into the
>> proposed library (or incubator) and plan to move forward incrementally
>> or (b) each continue doing our own thing(s) in our own trees while we
>> wait for someone to create something based on GPB that does what we want.
>
> I'd prefer (a); although I hope there is a owner/lead for this library
> (dan?) and it's not just dumped on the oslo folks as that won't work out
> so well I think. It'd be nice if said owner could also look into (b) but
> that's at there own (or other library supporter) time I suppose (I
> personally think (b) would probably allow for a larger community of
> folks to get involved in this library, would potentially reduce the
> amount of custom/overlapping code and other similar benefits...).

I gave some comments at the very end of the summit session on this, and 
I want to be clear about something. I definitely like GPB, and there's 
definite overlap with some things that GPB does and things that 
nova.objects does.

That said, I don't think it's wise to make oslo-versionedobjects be a 
totally new thing. I think we should use nova.objects as the base of a 
new oslo-versionedobjects library, and we should evolve 
oslo-versionedobjects slowly over time, eventually allowing for nova, 
ironic, and whomever else is currently using nova/objects, to align with 
an Oslo library vision for this.

So, in short, I also think a) is the appropriate path to take.

Best,
-jay