Open Stack

>> We have package format <=4.0 where all files have fixed names and
locations. This is the defaults.

The thing is for 5.0 there should be no default, those fields from now on
should be specified explicitly.

>> Igor want to provide multi-package

I'm not familiar with this idea, could you please clarify what
multi-package is?

Thanks,

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Ilya Kutukov <ikutukov at mirantis.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Evgeniy L <eli at mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Ilya,
>>
>> What do you mean by "default"? From the data format I see that we don't
>> "override defaults" we specify the data for specific release, the way it
>> was always done for deployment scripts and repositories.
>>
>>
> We have package format <=4.0 where all files have fixed names and
> locations. This is the defaults.
>
> 1. The maintenance team wants ability to specify folder instead plugin
> configuration files so there should be ability to change this paths to
> define a folder or other non-standard location. Yes, plugin developer could
> have whatever source structure and then translate it to the file structure
> required for the FPB with scripts or build system, but ability to split
> e.g. tasks files looks useful for me.
>
> 2. Igor want to provide multi-package, so, according to spec, this custom
> release-specific paths to other package files could be specified in release
> records.
>
> I don't see any reasons to complicate format even more and to have some
>> things which are related to the deployment specified in the root and some
>> in specific release.
>>
>> There is consistent mechanism to specify such kind of things, lets just
>> use it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Ilya Kutukov <ikutukov at mirantis.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Evgeniy L <eli at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ilya,
>>>>
>>>> >> My opinion that i've seen no example of multiple software of plugins
>>>> versions shipped in one package or other form of bundle. Its not a common
>>>> practice.
>>>>
>>>> With plugins we extend Fuel capabilities, which supports multiple
>>>> operating system releases, so it's absolutely natural to extend multiple
>>>> releases at the same time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I just warning against idea when to merge content of several plugin
>>> distributions in one bundle. But it's ok for plugin code to support
>>> multiple releases one or another way.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> >> Anyway we need to provide ability to override paths in manifest
>>>> (metadata.yaml).
>>>>
>>>> Could you please provide more information on that? I'm not sure if I
>>>> understand your solution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/271417/5/specs/9.0/plugins-v5.rst L150
>>> and further
>>> We are overriding default path with special per-release path attributes.
>>> The question is to use per-release way described in spec or don't bother
>>> and specify this overrides only in metadata.yaml root.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also I'm not sure what we are arguing about, if plugin developer (or
>>>> certification process of some company) requires to have plugin per release,
>>>> it's *very easy* and straight forward to do it even now *without any*
>>>> changes.
>>>>
>>>> If plugin developer wants to deliver plugin for CentOS, Ubuntu, RH etc,
>>>> let them do it, and again when we get full support
>>>> of multi-version environments it's going to be even more crucial for UX to
>>>> have a single plugin with multi-release support.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Ilya Kutukov <ikutukov at mirantis.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My opinion that i've seen no example of multiple software of plugins
>>>>> versions shipped in one package or other form of bundle. Its not a common
>>>>> practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway we need to provide ability to override paths in manifest
>>>>> (metadata.yaml).
>>>>>
>>>>> So the plugin developers could use this approaches to provide multiple
>>>>> versions support:
>>>>>
>>>>> * tasks logic (do the plugin developers have access to current release
>>>>> info?)
>>>>> * hooks in pre-build process. Its not a big deal to preprocess source
>>>>> folder to build different packages with scripts that adding or removing
>>>>> some files or replacing some paths.
>>>>> * and, perhaps, logic anchors with YACL or other DSL in tasks
>>>>> dependancies if this functionality will be added this in theory could allow
>>>>> to use or not to use some graph parts depending on release.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think its already better than nothing and more flexible than any
>>>>> standardised approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Simon Pasquier <
>>>>> spasquier at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> 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/20160212/1b833d6a/attachment.html>