Open Stack

On 02/10/2015 12:20 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2015-02-10 11:50:28 -0500 (-0500), David Kranz wrote:
> [...]
>> I would rather give up branchless tempest than the ability for
>> real distributors/deployers/operators to collaborate on stable
>> branches.
> [...]
>
> Keep in mind that branchless tempest came about in part due to
> downstream use cases as well, not merely as a means to simplify our
> testing implementation. Specifically, the interoperability (defcore,
> refstack) push was for a testing framework and testset which could
> work against multiple deployed environments regardless of what
> release(s) they're running and without having to decide among
> multiple versions of a tool to do so (especially since they might be
> mixing components from multiple OpenStack integrated releases at any
> given point in time).
Yes, but that goes out the window in the real world because tempest is 
not really branchless when we periodically
throw out older releases, as we must.  And the earlier we toss out 
things like icehouse, the less branchless it is from the 
interoperability perspective.
Also, tempest is really based on api versions of services, not 
integrated releases, so I'm not sure where mixing components comes into 
play.

In any event, this is a tradeoff and since refstack or whomever has to 
deal with releases that are no longer supported upstream anyway,
they could just do whatever the solution is from the get-go. That said, 
I feel like the current situation is caused by a perfect storm of 
branchless tempest, unpinned versions, and running multiple releases on 
the same machine so there could be other ways to untangle things. I just 
think it is a bad idea to throw the concept of stable branches overboard 
just because the folks who care about it can't deal with the current 
complexity. Once we simplify it, some way or another, I am sure more 
folks will step up or those who have already can get more done.

  -David