Open Stack

We had originally planned for the FFEs for both fuel-openstack-tasks[1] and
fuel-remove-conflict-openstack to [2] to close on 3/20, This would have
placed them before changes that conflict with
fuel-refactor-osnailyfacter-for-puppet-master-compatibility [3].

[1]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088297.html
[2]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088298.html
[3]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/089028.html

However we found this morning that the changes from [2], and more of issue
[1] will result in further issues such as [4], where as the task files
move, any task that explicitly relied on it, now no longer is in the same
path.

[4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/295170/

Due to this newly identified issue with backwards comparability. It appears
that [4] shows that we have plugins using interfaces that we don't have
formal coverage for so If we introduce this set of changes, we will cause
breakage for plugins that use fuel's current tasks.

>From a deprecation standpoint we don't have a way to deal with this, unless
 fuel-openstack-tasks [1] lands after
fuel-refactor-osnailyfacter-for-puppet-master-compatibility [3]. In this
case we can take advantage of the class include stubs, leaving a copy in
the old location (osnailyfacter/modular/roles/compute.pp) pointing to the
new include location (include openstack_tasks::roles::compute) and adding a
warning for deprecation. The tasks includes in the new location
openstack_tasks/examples/roles/compute.pp would simply include the updated
class location w/o the warning.

This would take care of [1] and it's review [5]

[5] https://review.openstack.org/283332

This still leaves [2] un-addressed, we still have 3 open CR for it:

[6] Compute https://review.openstack.org/285567
[7] Cinder https://review.openstack.org/294736
[8] Swift https://review.openstack.org/294979

Compute [6] is in good shape, while Cinder [7] and Swift [8] are not. For
these do we want to continue to land them, if so what do we want to do
about the now deprecated openstack:: tasks? We could leave them in place
with a warning since we would not be using them

-- 

--

Andrew Woodward

Mirantis

Fuel Community Ambassador

Ceph Community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160321/aeef341c/attachment.html>