Open Stack

This is now queued up for discussion this week -
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda

On 10/01/2015 06:22 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> Some of us are actively watching the thread / participating. I'll make
> sure it gets on the TC agenda in the near future.
> 
> I think most of the recommendations are quite good, especially on the
> client support front for clients / tools within our community.
> 
> On 09/30/2015 10:37 PM, Matt Fischer wrote:
>> 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
>> <mailto:mvoelker at vmware.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Mark T. Voelker
>>
>>
>>
>>     > On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Matt Fischer <matt at mattfischer.com
>>     <mailto: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://OpenStack-dev-request@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
>>     <mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
>>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net