[openstack-dev] [all] FYI - dropping non RabbitMQ support in devstack
clint at fewbar.com
Wed Jun 17 17:29:01 UTC 2015
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2015-06-16 10:16:34 -0700:
> On 06/16/2015 12:49 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2015-06-16 06:22:23 -0700:
> >> FYI,
> >> One of the things that came out of the summit for Devstack plans going
> >> forward is to trim it back to something more opinionated and remove a
> >> bunch of low use optionality in the process.
> >> One of those branches to be trimmed is all the support for things beyond
> >> RabbitMQ in the rpc layer. RabbitMQ is what's used by 95%+ of our
> >> community, that's what the development environment should focus on.
> >> The patch to remove all of this is here -
> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192154/. Expect this to merge by the
> >> end of the month. If people are interested in non RabbitMQ external
> >> plugins, now is the time to start writing them. The oslo.messaging team
> >> already moved their functional test installation for alternative
> >> platforms off of devstack, so this should impact a very small number of
> >> people.
> > The recent spec we added to define a policy for oslo.messaging drivers is
> > intended as a way to encourage that 5% who feels a different messaging
> > layer is critical to participate upstream by adding devstack-gate jobs
> > and committing developers to keep them stable. This change basically
> > slams the door in their face and says "good luck, we don't actually care
> > about accomodating you." This will drive them more into the shadows,
> > and push their forks even further away from the core of the project. If
> > that's your intention, then we need to have a longer conversation where
> > you explain to me why you feel that's a good thing.
> I believe it is not the responsibility of the devstack team to support
> every possible backend one could imagine and carry that technical debt
> in tree, confusing new users in the process that any of these things
> might actually work. I believe that if you feel that your spec assumed
> that was going to be the case, you made a large incorrect externalities
I agree with you, and support your desire to move things into plugins.
However, your timing is problematic and the lack of coordination with
the ongoing effort to deprecate untested messaging drivers gracefully
is really frustrating. We've been asking (on this list) zmq interested
parties to add devstack-gate jobs and identify themselves as contacts
to support these drivers. Meanwhile this change and the wording around
it suggest that they're not welcome in devstack.
> > Also, I take issue with the value assigned to dropping it. If that 95%
> > is calculated as orgs_running_on_rabbit/orgs then it's telling a really
> > lop-sided story. I'd rather see compute_nodes_on_rabbit/compute_nodes.
> > I'd like to propose that we leave all of this in tree to match what is
> > in oslo.messaging. I think devstack should follow oslo.messaging and
> > deprecate the ones that oslo.messaging deprecates. Otherwise I feel like
> > we're Vizzini cutting the rope just as The Dread Pirate 0mq is about to
> > climb the last 10 meters to the top of the cliffs of insanity and battle
> > RabbitMQ left handed. I know, "inconceivable" right?
> We have an external plugin mechanism for devstack. That's a viable
> option here. People will have to own and do that work, instead of
> expecting the small devstack team to do that for them. I believe I left
> enough of a hook in place that it's possible.
So lets do some communication, and ask for the qpid and zmq people to
step up, and help them move their code into an external plugin, and add
documentation to help their users find it. The burden should shift, but
it still rests with devstack until it _does_ shift.
> That would also let them control the code relevant to their plugin,
> because there is no way that devstack was going to gate against other
> backends here, so we'd end up breaking them pretty often, and it taking
> a while to fix them in tree.
I love that idea. That is not what the change does though. It deletes
with nary a word about what users of this code should do until new
external plugins appear.
More information about the OpenStack-dev