Open Stack

FWIW, I'm for option B, combined with clear timeline for porting features
of fuel-variant to fuel2. For example, we are developing client-side
functions for fuel-octane (cluster upgrade) extensions only for fuel2, and
don't plan to implement it for 'fuel'.

The main reason why we can't just drop 'fuel', or rather switch it to fuel2
syntax, IMO, is the possibility that someone somewhere uses its current
syntax for automation. However, if the function is completely new, the
automation of this function should be implemented with the new version of
syntax.

--
Best regards,
Oleg Gelbukh

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Fedor Zhadaev <fzhadaev at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I think that in current situation the best solution will be to add new
> features for the both versions of client. It may cause a little slowing
> down of developing each feature, but we won't have to return to them in
> future.
>
> 2015-07-24 11:58 GMT+03:00 Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnitsky at mirantis.com>:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> My 2 cents on it.
>>
>> Following plan C requires a huge effort from developer, and it may be
>> unacceptable when FF is close and there're a lot of work to do. So it
>> looks like the plan B is most convenient for us and eventually we will
>> have all features in fuel2.
>>
>> Alternatively we can go with C.. but only if implementing support in
>> either fuel or fuel2 may be postponed to SCF.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Igor
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Evgeniy L <eli at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Sebastian, thanks for clarification, in this case I think we
>> > should follow plan C, new features should not slow us down
>> > in migration from old to new version of the client.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski
>> > <skalinowski at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 2015-07-23 18:28 GMT+02:00 Stanislaw Bogatkin <sbogatkin at mirantis.com
>> >:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> can we just add all needed functionality from old fuel client that
>> fuel2
>> >>> needs, then say that old fuel-client is deprecated now and will not
>> support
>> >>> some new features, then add new features to fuel2 only? It seems like
>> best
>> >>> way for me, cause with this approach:
>> >>> 1. Clients will can use only one version of client (new one) w/o
>> >>> switching between 2 clients with different syntax
>> >>> 2. We won't have to add new features to two clients.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Stas, of course moving it all to new fuel2 would be the best way to do
>> it,
>> >> but this refactoring took place in previous release. There is no one
>> that
>> >> ported a single command (except new ones) since then and there is no
>> plan
>> >> for doing so since other activities have higher priority. And features
>> are
>> >> still coming so it would be nice to have a policy for the time all
>> commands
>> >> will move to new fuel2.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Evgeniy L <eli at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The best option is to add new functionality to fuel2 only, but I
>> >>>> don't think that we can do that if there is not enough functionality
>> >>>> in fuel2, we should not ask user to switch between fuel and fuel2
>> >>>> to get some specific functionality.
>> >>>> Do we have some list of commands which is not covered in fuel2?
>> >>>> I'm just wondering how much time will it take to implement all
>> >>>> required commands in fuel2.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So to compare: this is a help message for "old" fuel [1] and "new"
>> fuel2
>> >> [2]. There are only "node", "env" and "task" actions covered and even
>> they
>> >> are not covered in 100%.
>> >>
>> >> [1] http://paste.openstack.org/show/404439/
>> >> [2] http://paste.openstack.org/show/404440/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski
>> >>>> <skalinowski at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi folks,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> For a some time in python-fuelclient we have two CLI apps: `fuel`
>> and
>> >>>>> `fuel2`. It was done as an implementation of blueprint [1].
>> >>>>> Right now there is a situation where some new features are added
>> just
>> >>>>> to old `fuel`, some to just `fuel2`, some to both. We cannot simply
>> switch
>> >>>>> completely to new `fuel2` as it doesn't cover all old commands.
>> >>>>> As far as I remember there was no agreement how we should proceed
>> with
>> >>>>> adding new things to python-fuelclient, so to keep all development
>> for new
>> >>>>> commands I would like us to choose what will be our approach. There
>> are 3
>> >>>>> ways to do it (with some pros and cons):
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> A) Add new features only to old `fuel`.
>> >>>>> Pros:
>> >>>>>  - Implement feature in one place
>> >>>>>  - Almost all features are covered there
>> >>>>> Cons:
>> >>>>>  - Someone will need to port this features to new `fuel2`
>> >>>>>  - Issues that forced us to reimplement whole `fuel` as `fuel2`
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> B) Add new features only to new `fuel2`
>> >>>>> Pros:
>> >>>>>  - Implement feature in one place
>> >>>>>  - No need to cope with issues in old `fuel` (like worse UX, etc.)
>> >>>>> Cons:
>> >>>>>  - Not all features are covered by `fuel2` so user will need to
>> switch
>> >>>>> between `fuel` and `fuel2`
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> C) Add new features to both CLIs
>> >>>>> Pros:
>> >>>>>  - User can choose which tool to use
>> >>>>>  - No need to port feature later...
>> >>>>> Cons:
>> >>>>>  - ...but it still doubles the work
>> >>>>>  - We keep alive a tool that should be replaced (old `fuel`)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Best,
>> >>>>> Sebastian
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [1]
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/re-thinking-fuel-client
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> >>>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kind Regards,
> Fedor Zhadaev
> Junior Software Engineer, Mirantis Inc.
> Skype: zhadaevfm
> E-mail: fzhadaev at mirantis.com
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150724/e4602519/attachment.html>