Open Stack

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:23 PM Dmitry Borodaenko <dborodaenko at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> +1 to Stas, supplanting VCS branches with code duplication is a path to
> madness and despair. The dubious benefits of a cross-release backwards
> compatible plugin binary are not worth the code and infra technical debt
> that such approach would accrue over time.
>

Supporting multiple fuel releases will likely result in madness as
discussed, however as we look to support multiple OpenStack releases from
the same version of fuel, this methodology becomes much more important.


> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 07:36:30PM +0300, Stanislaw Bogatkin wrote:
> > It changes mostly nothing for case of furious plugin development when big
> > parts of code changed from one release to another.
> >
> > You will have 6 different deployment_tasks directories and 30 a little
> bit
> > different files in root directory of plugin. Also you forgot about
> > repositories directory (+6 at least), pre_build hooks (also 6) and so on.
> > It will look as hell after just 3 years of development.
> >
> > Also I can't imagine how to deal with plugin licensing if you have Apache
> > for liberty but BSD for mitaka release, for example.
> >
> > Much easier way to develop a plugin is to keep it's source in VCS like
> Git
> > and just make a branches for every fuel release. It will give us
> > opportunity to not store a bunch of similar but a little bit different
> > files in repo. There is no reason to drag all different versions of code
> > for specific release.
> >
> >
> > On other hand there is a pros - your plugin can survive after upgrade if
> it
> > supports new release, no changes needed here.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Alexey Shtokolov <
> ashtokolov at mirantis.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Fuelers,
> > >
> > > We are discussing the idea to extend the multi release packages for
> > > plugins.
> > >
> > > Fuel plugin builder (FPB) can create one rpm-package for all supported
> > > releases (from metadata.yaml) but we can specify only deployment
> scripts
> > > and repositories per release.
> > >
> > > Current release definition (in metadata.yaml):
> > >     - os: ubuntu
> > >       version: liberty-8.0
> > >       mode: ['ha']
> > >       deployment_scripts_path: deployment_scripts/
> > >       repository_path: repositories/ubuntu
> > >
>

This will result in far too much clutter.
For starters we should support nested over rides. for example the author
may have already taken account for the changes between one openstack
version to another. In this case they only should need to define the
releases they support and not specify any additional locations. Later they
may determine that they only need to replace packages, or one other file
they should not be required to code every location for each release

Also, at the same time we MUST clean up importing various yaml files.
Specifically, tasks, volumes, node roles, and network roles. Requiring that
they all be maintained in a single file doesn't scale, we don't require it
for tasks.yaml in fuel library, and we should not require it in plugins. We
should simply do the same thing as tasks.yaml in library, scan the subtree
for specific file names and just merge them all together. (This has been
expressed multiple times by people with larger plugins)

> > So the idea [0] is to make releases fully configurable.
> > > Suggested changes for release definition (in metadata.yaml):
> > >       components_path: components_liberty.yaml
> > >       deployment_tasks_path: deployment_tasks_liberty/ # <- folder

> >       environment_config_path: environment_config_liberty.yaml
> > >       network_roles_path: network_roles_liberty.yaml
> > >       node_roles_path: node_roles_liberty.yaml
> > >       volumes_path: volumes_liberty.yaml
> > >
> > > I see the issue: if we change anything for one release (e.g.
> > > deployment_task typo) revalidation is needed for all releases.
> > >
> > > Your Pros and cons please?
> > >
> > > [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/271417/
> > > ---
> > > WBR, Alexey Shtokolov
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > with best regards,
> > Stan.
>
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
-- 

--

Andrew Woodward

Mirantis

Fuel Community Ambassador

Ceph Community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160210/a09efe41/attachment.html>