Open Stack

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 04:04 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015, at 06:31 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <
> > ihrachys at redhat.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 02/20/2015 07:16 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> > > > > > > Sean Dague wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 02/20/2015 12:26 AM, Adam Gandelman wrote:
> > > > > > >>> Its more than just the naming.  In the original proposal,
> > > > > > >>> requirements.txt is the compiled list of all pinned deps
> > > > > > >>> (direct and transitive), while
> > > > > > >>> requirements.in<http://requirements.in>  reflects what people
> > > > > > >>> will actually use.  Whatever is in requirements.txt affects the
> > > > > > >>> egg's requires.txt. Instead, we can keep requirements.txt
> > > > > > >>> unchanged and have it still be the canonical list of
> > > > > > >>> dependencies, while
> > > > > > >>> reqiurements.out/requirements.gate/requirements.whatever is an
> > > > > > >>> upstream utility we produce and use to keep things sane on our
> > > > > > >>> slaves.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Maybe all we need is:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> * update the existing post-merge job on the requirements repo
> > > > > > >>> to produce a requirements.txt (as it does now) as well the
> > > > > > >>> compiled version.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> * modify devstack in some way with a toggle to have it process
> > > > > > >>> dependencies from the compiled version when necessary
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I'm not sure how the second bit jives with the existing
> > > > > > >>> devstack installation code, specifically with the libraries
> > > > > > >>> from git-or-master but we can probably add something to warm
> > > > > > >>> the system with dependencies from the compiled version prior to
> > > > > > >>> calling pip/setup.py/etc <http://setup.py/etc>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> It sounds like you are suggesting we take the tool we use to
> > > > > > >> ensure that all of OpenStack is installable together in a
> > unified
> > > > > > >> way, and change it's installation so that it doesn't do that any
> > > > > > >> more.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Which I'm fine with.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> But if we are doing that we should just whole hog give up on the
> > > > > > >> idea that OpenStack can be run all together in a single
> > > > > > >> environment, and just double down on the devstack venv work
> > > > > > >> instead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It'd be interesting to see what a distribution (canonical,
> > > > > > > redhat...) would think about this movement. I know yahoo! has
> > been
> > > > > > > looking into it for similar reasons (but we are more flexibly
> > then
> > > > > > > I think a packager such as canonical/redhat/debian/... would/culd
> > > > > > > be). With a move to venv's that seems like it would just offload
> > > > > > > the work to find the set of dependencies that work together (in a
> > > > > > > single-install) to packagers instead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is that ok/desired at this point?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Honestly, I failed to track all the different proposals. Just
> > saying
> > > > > > from packager perspective: we absolutely rely on requirements.txt
> > not
> > > > > > being a list of hardcoded values from pip freeze, but present us a
> > > > > > reasonable freedom in choosing versions we want to run in packaged
> > > > > > products.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > in short the current proposal for stable branches is:
> > > > >
> > > > > keep requirements.txt as is, except maybe put some upper bounds on
> > the
> > > > > requirements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Add requirements.gate to specify the *exact* versions we are gating
> > > > > against
> > > > > (this would be a full list including all transitive dependencies).
> > > >
> > > > The gate syncs requirements into projects before installing them. Would
> > > > we change the sync script for the gate to work from the
> > > > requirements.gate file, or keep it pulling from requirements.txt?
> > > >
> > >
> > > We would only add requirements.gate for stable branches (because we don't
> > > want to cap/pin  things on master). So I think the answer is sync script
> > > should work for both.  I am not sure on the exact mechanics of how this
> > > would work. Whoever ends up driving this bit of work (I think Adam G),
> > > will
> > > have to sort out the details.
> >
> > OK. I think it's probably worth a spec, then, so we can think it through
> > before starting work. Maybe in the cross-project specs repo, to avoid
> > having to create one just for requirements? Or we could modify the
> > README or something, but the specs repo seems more visible.
> >
> 
> Start of the cross project spec https://review.openstack.org/159249

Thanks, Joe!

> 
> 
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Doug
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's why I asked before we should have caps and not pins.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /Ihar
> > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > > > Version: GnuPG v1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU61oJAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57T7cIALySnlpLV0tjrsTH2gZxskH+
> > > > > > zY+L6E/DukFNZsWxB2XSaOuVdVaP3Oj4eYCZ2iL8OoxLrBotiOYyRFH29f9vjNSX
> > > > > > h++dErBr0SwIeUtcnEjbk9re6fNP6y5Hqhk1Ac+NSxwL75KlS3bgKnJAhLA08MVB
> > > > > > 5xkGRR7xl2cuYf9eylPlQaAy9rXPCyyRdxZs6mNjZ2vlY6hZx/w/Y7V28R/V4gO4
> > > > > > qsvMg6Kv+3urDTRuJdEsV6HbN/cXr2+o543Unzq7gcPpDYXRFTLkpCRV2k8mnmA1
> > > > > > pO9W10F1FCQZiBnLk0c6OypFz9rQmKxpwlNUN5MTMF15Et6DOxGBxMcfr7TpRaQ=
> > > > > > =WHOH
> > > > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > > >
> > >
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe:
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev