Open Stack

Hi,

I agree with Ivan. Getting rid of forks and moving to puppet-librarian is
complicated work and such problems are nearly unavoidable. It's hard to
cover all possible corner cases with regular tests.
openstacklib module provides basic functionality for many OpenStack
modules, so reverting it to Kilo code means breaking the whole Liberty
deployment.
Let's don't block development process and merge all lost fixes.

Thanks Matthew for reporting this issue.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Ivan Berezovskiy <
iberezovskiy at mirantis.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> First of all, I want to mention (I don't blame anyone), that two patchsets
> in bug description
> ([0], [1]) were not merged into upstream puppet-openstacklib module (and
> commit
> messages don't contain links to upstream review). I see only one proposed
> patch [2]
> from Dmitry Ilyin, which was abandoned at Sep 18. Now it's restored and
> those issues should be fixed using it.
>
> Second, our patches (moving to librarian) were tested several times under
> Fuel CI jobs,
> on BVTs, smoke_neutron tests with Kilo and Liberty code. Unfortunately, we
> didn't find
> problems with deployment.
>
> Third, two weeks passed after merging of our patches for librarian, and
> only now
> we are speaking about regressions.
>
> Patch [2] covers missing two commits [0], [1], that's why I suggest to get
> it merged
> and then recheck issues, because it's very late for reverting.
>
>
> [0] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219668/
> [1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/223676/
> [2] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/220224/
>
> 2015-10-19 20:59 GMT+03:00 Sergii Golovatiuk <sgolovatiuk at mirantis.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The policy should be revert, IMHO. cherry-pick doesn't guarantee the
>> consistency, so it will take more time... Also this way gives time to write
>> tests to exclude the regression in future.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Sergii Golovatiuk,
>> Skype #golserge
>> IRC #holser
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Matthew Mosesohn <mmosesohn at mirantis.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Fuelers,
>>>
>>> It seems we have a regression on two critical bugs because of switching
>>> Fuel to puppet-openstacklib:
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1507685
>>>
>>> This regressed to patches that were in Fuel Library that addressed two
>>> bugs marked as Critical.
>>>
>>> We should improve the acceptance criteria for moving to upstream modules
>>> to ensure no bugs are regressed that relate to the particular Puppet module
>>> being migrated.
>>>
>>> Secondly, what should our policy be? Revert the switch to upstream
>>> module? Or just work on cherry-picking the appropriate fixes?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Matthew Mosesohn
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks, Ivan Berezovskiy
> MOS Puppet Team Lead
> at Mirantis <https://www.mirantis.com/>
>
> slack: iberezovskiy
> skype: bouhforever
> phone: + 7-960-343-42-46
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Sergey Kolekonov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151019/c1b93866/attachment.html>