[openstack-dev] [ffe][requirements][monasca][heat][watcher][congress] FFE for python-monascaclient minimum version in g-r

witold.bedyk at est.fujitsu.com witold.bedyk at est.fujitsu.com
Fri Aug 4 08:44:46 UTC 2017


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Breeds [mailto:tony at bakeyournoodle.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 4. August 2017 05:10
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]
> [ffe][requirements][monasca][heat][watcher][congress] FFE for python-
> monascaclient minimum version in g-r
> 
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:39:47AM +0000, witold.bedyk at est.fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I would like to ask for the FFE for python-monascaclient version in global
> requirements.
> >
> > The current version in Pike (1.7.0) is not fully backward compatible. The
> monasca exception classes were replaced with keystoneauth exceptions,
> which affects heat and watcher projects if they use current upper
> constraints. The fixes for these projects have been submitted [1, 2].
> >
> > Also, monasca projects (monasca-agent, monasca-ui, monasca-api) rely on
> python-monascaclient 1.7.0 and don't work with older versions.
> >
> > The change for bumping the minimum version of python-monascaclient is
> here:
> >
> > https://review.openstack.org/489173
> 
> Okay I said on that review that I was confused and wasn't ready to grant an
> FFE.  In trying to "articulate my confusion"  I worked out why I was confused
> #winning \o/
> 
> So for me it boils down to the affected projects:
> 
> Package      : python-monascaclient [python-monascaclient>=1.1.0] (used
> by 4 projects)
> Also affects : 4 projects
> openstack/congress                            []
> openstack/heat                                [tc:approved-release]
> openstack/monasca-ui                          []
> openstack/watcher                             []
> 
> Congres, and heat have said they're eaither not affected or are willing to
> accept the impacts.  That leaves watcher.
> 
> But each of them is using constraints and the gates are passing, so the overall
> risk/impact seems much lower to me that I estimated yesterday.
> 
> I think I just talked myself round.
> 
> Yours Tony.


Hi Tony,
Thanks, we're really happy to have g-r bumped.
And sorry for the additional effort and confusion. The bump should have happened much earlier.


Greetings
Witek


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list