[openstack-dev] [nova] what is our shipped paste.ini going to be for Kilo

Robert Collins robertc at robertcollins.net
Tue Mar 17 20:17:11 UTC 2015

On 17 March 2015 at 23:48, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> On 03/16/2015 10:56 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> Better at the cost of forcing all existing users to upgrade just to
>> keep using code of their own that already worked.
>> Not really 'better' IMO. Different surely.
>> We could (should) add Warning: headers to inform about this, but
>> breaking isn't healthy IMO.
> No, that's the point, *no* existing users are forced to upgrade. This is
> going to require a manual change after your upgrade to get this new
> default behavior, which we'll need to explain in the release notes.
> This is not a code change, it's a sample config change.

I may be confused. Let me spell out what's in my head.

Firstly, new clouds will default to an API that throws errors from
[some] existing SDK's (and perhaps also custom apps that are adding
unexpected fields via regular SDKs). Folk driving multiple clouds who
try to talk to these new ones will get errors and be unable to use
those clouds until those errors are fixed. Either by fixing the SDK,
or by going to the [now deployed] cloud and complaining.

Secondly, you say that paste.ini is a config file, but I recall Dan
Prince saying in TripleO that they aren't config files we should be
editing, and we should instead be using the upstream one as-is, so we
did that there. So there's some confusion at least in some circles
about whether these are config-for-users or not :).

I may be jumping at shadows, like the whole
must-have-nova-bm-to-ironic upgrade discussion was, so I'm not going
to argue very strongly here - if my scenarios are wrong, thats cool.
OTOH if I've described something plausible or something we don't have
but can get data on, perhaps its worth considering.


Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list