Open Stack

Thanks for summarizing this Mark. What's the best way to get feedback about
this to the TC? I'd love to see some of the items which I think are common
sense for anyone who can't just blow away devstack and start over to get
added for consideration.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Mark Voelker <mvoelker at vmware.com> wrote:

>
> Mark T. Voelker
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Matt Fischer <matt at mattfischer.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with John Griffith. I don't have any empirical evidences to back
> > my "feelings" on that one but it's true that we weren't enable to enable
> > Cinder v2 until now.
> >
> > Which makes me wonder: When can we actually deprecate an API version? I
> > *feel* we are fast to jump on the deprecation when the replacement isn't
> > 100% ready yet for several versions.
> >
> > --
> > Mathieu
> >
> >
> > I don't think it's too much to ask that versions can't be deprecated
> until the new version is 100% working, passing all tests, and the clients
> (at least python-xxxclients) can handle it without issues. Ideally I'd like
> to also throw in the criteria that devstack, rally, tempest, and other
> services are all using and exercising the new API.
> >
> > I agree that things feel rushed.
>
>
> FWIW, the TC recently created an assert:follows-standard-deprecation tag.
> Ivan linked to a thread in which Thierry asked for input on it, but FYI the
> final language as it was approved last week [1] is a bit different than
> originally proposed.  It now requires one release plus 3 linear months of
> deprecated-but-still-present-in-the-tree as a minimum, and recommends at
> least two full stable releases for significant features (an entire API
> version would undoubtedly fall into that bucket).  It also requires that a
> migration path will be documented.  However to Matt’s point, it doesn’t
> contain any language that says specific things like:
>
> In the case of major API version deprecation:
> * $oldversion and $newversion must both work with
> [cinder|nova|whatever]client and openstackclient during the deprecation
> period.
> * It must be possible to run $oldversion and $newversion concurrently on
> the servers to ensure end users don’t have to switch overnight.
> * Devstack uses $newversion by default.
> * $newversion works in Tempest/Rally/whatever else.
>
> What it *does* do is require that a thread be started here on
> openstack-operators [2] so that operators can provide feedback.  I would
> hope that feedback like “I can’t get clients to use it so please don’t
> remove it yet” would be taken into account by projects, which seems to be
> exactly what’s happening in this case with Cinder v1.  =)
>
> I’d hazard a guess that the TC would be interested in hearing about
> whether you think that plan is a reasonable one (and given that TC election
> season is upon us, candidates for the TC probably would too).
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/207467/
> [2]
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/tags/assert_follows-standard-deprecation.rst#n59
>
> At Your Service,
>
> Mark T. Voelker
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150930/08288ea0/attachment.html>