[openstack-dev] [keystone][nova][neutron][all] Rolling upgrades: database triggers and oslo.versionedobjects

Jeremy Stanley fungi at yuggoth.org
Thu Sep 1 18:01:13 UTC 2016


On 2016-09-01 10:39:09 -0400 (-0400), Mike Bayer wrote:
> On 08/31/2016 06:18 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
[...]
> >OpenStack is One Project
> >========================
> >
> > Nova and Neutron have an approach for this. It may or may not be
> > ideal - but it exists right now. While it can be satisfying to
> > discount the existing approach and write a new one, I do not
> > believe that is in the best interests of OpenStack as a whole.
> > To diverge in _keystone_ - which is one of the few projects that
> > must exist in every OpenStack install - when there exists an
> > approach in the two other most commonly deployed projects - is
> > such a terrible example of the problems inherent in Conway's Law
> > that it makes me want to push up a proposal to dissolve all of
> > the individual project teams and merge all of the repos into a
> > single repo.
[...]
> The "be more similar" argument would be the only one you have to
> make. It basically says, "problem X is 'solved', other approaches
> are now unnecessary". I'm skeptical that I am reading that
> correctly. I have another approach to the issue of "rolling
> upgrades where we really need to translate at the SQL layer" that
> is in some ways similar to what triggers do, but entirely within
> the abstraction layer that you so appropriately appreciate :). I
> have a binary decision to make here, "do i work on this new idea
> that Glance has already expressed an interest in and Keystone
> might like also? Or do I not, because this problem is solved?". I
> have other projects to work on, so it's not like I'm looking for
> more. It's just I'd like to see Glance and others have their
> rolling upgrades problem solved, at least with the benefit of a
> fixed and predictable pattern, rather than every schema change
> being an ongoing seat-of-the-pants type of operation as it is
> right now.
[...]

You (presumably accidentally) snipped the next paragraph of context,
which started out:

> > Make the oslo libraries Nova and Neutron are using better. Work
> > with the Nova and Neutron teams on a consolidated approach.
[...]

I don't read that at all as suggesting "the problem is solved, go
away" but rather "help us make it better for everyone, don't just
take one project off in a new direction and leave the others
behind."
-- 
Jeremy Stanley



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list