Open Stack

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnitsky at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> The original idea is to provide a way to build plugin that are
> compatible with few releases. It makes sense to me, cause it looks
> awful if you need to maintain different branches for different Fuel
> releases and there's no difference in the sources. In that case, each
> bugfix to deployment scripts requires:
>
> * backport bugfix to other branches (N backports)
> * build new packages for supported releases (N builds)
> * release new packages (N releases)
>
> It's somehow.. annoying.
>

A big +1 on Igor's remark. I've already expressed it in another thread but
it should be expected that plugin developers want to support 2 consecutive
versions of Fuel for a given version of their plugin.
That being said, I've never had issues to do it with the current plugin
framework. Except when Fuel breaks the backward compatibility but it's
another story...

Simon


>
> However, I starting agree that having all-in-one RPM when deployment
> scripts are different, tasks are different, roles/volumes are
> different, probably isn't a good idea. It basically means that your
> sources are completely different, and that means you have different
> implementations of the same plugin. In that case, in order to avoid
> mess in source tree, it'd be better to separate such implementations
> on VCS level.
>
> But I'd like to hear more opinion from plugin developers.
>
> - Igor
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Bulat Gaifullin
> <bgaifullin at mirantis.com> wrote:
> > I agree with Stas, one rpm - one version.
> >
> > But plugin builder allows to specify several releases as compatible. The
> > deployment tasks and repositories can be specified per release, at the
> same
> > time the deployment graph is one for all releases.
> > Currently it looks like half-implemented feature.  Can we drop this
> feature?
> > or should we finish implementation of this feature.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bulat Gaifullin
> > Mirantis Inc.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11 Feb 2016, at 02:41, Andrew Woodward <xarses at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160211/6368b0b9/attachment.html>