Open Stack

Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2017-04-20 22:31:19 -0700:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from gordon chung's message of 2017-04-20 17:12:26 +0000:
> >> On 20/04/17 01:32 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> >>> Wasn't there also some decision made in austin (?) about how we as a
> >>> group stated something along the line of co-installability isn't as
> >>> important as it once was (and may not even be practical or what people
> >>> care about anymore anyway)?
> >
> > I don't remember that, but I may not have been in the room at the
> > time.  In the past when we've discussed that idea, we've continued
> > to maintain that co-installability is still needed for distributors
> > who have packaging constraints that require it and for use cases
> > like single-node deployments for POCs.
> 
> Ya, looking back I think it was:
> 
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/newton-global-requirements
> 
> I think that was robert that lead that session, but I might be incorrect 
> there.

That was me, though Robert was definitely present and vocal.

My memory of the outcome of that session was that we needed to maintain
co-installability; that we could continue to keep an eye on the
container space as an alternative; and that a new team of maintainers
would take over the requirements list (which was my secret agenda for
proposing that we stop doing it at all).

During the session in Barcelona (I previously said Austin, but
misremembered the location) we agreed that we could stop syncing,
as long as we maintained co-installability by ensuring that everyone's
requirements lists intersect with the upper-constraints.txt list. That
work has been started.

As far as I know, we have never said we could drop co-installability as
a requirement. We have wished we could, but have not said we can.

Doug

> 
> >
> >>> With kolla becoming more popular (tripleo I think is using it, and ...)
> >>> and the containers it creates making isolated per-application
> >>> environments it makes me wonder what of global-requirements is still
> >>> valid (as a concept) and what isn't.
> >
> > We still need to review dependencies for license compatibility, to
> > minimize redundancy, and to ensure that we're not adding things to
> > the list that are not being maintained upstream. Even if we stop syncing
> > versions, official projects need to be those reviews, and having the
> > global list is a way to ensure that the reviews are done.
> >
> >>> I do remember the days of free for all requirements (or requirements
> >>> sometimes just put/stashed in devstack vs elsewhere), which I don't
> >>> really want to go back to; but if we finally all agree that
> >>> co-installability isn't what people actually do and/or care about
> >>> (anymore?) then maybe we can re-think some things?
> >> agree with all of ^... but i imagine to make progress on this, we'd have
> >> to change/drop devstack usage in gate and that will take forever and a
> >> lifetime (is that a chick flick title?) given how embedded devstack is
> >> in everything. it seems like the solution starts with devstack.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >>
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>