Open Stack

Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2018-01-10 17:40:28 -0600:
> On 01/10/2018 04:10 PM, Jon Schlueter wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:12 PM, gordon chung <gord at live.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2017-11-22 04:18 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Now that the Ceilometer API is gone, we really don't need
> >>> ceilometerclient anymore. I've proposed a set of patches to retire it:
> >>>
> >>>     https://review.openstack.org/#/c/522183/
> >>>
> > 
> > 
> > So my question here is are we missing a process check for retiring a
> > project that is still in
> > the requirements of several other OpenStack projects?
> > 
> > I went poking around and found that rally [4], heat [1], aodh [3] and
> > mistral [2] still had references to
> > ceilometerclient in the RPM packaging in RDO Queens, and on digging a
> > bit more they
> > were still in the requirements for at least those 4 projects.
> > 
> > I would think that a discussion around retiring a project should also
> > include at least enumerating
> > which projects are currently consuming it [5].  That way a little bit
> > of pressure on those consumers
> > can be exerted to evaluate their usage of an about to be retired
> > project.  It shouldn't stop the
> > discussions around retiring a project just a data point for decision making.
> 
> It's worth pointing out that openstacksdk has ceilometer REST API 
> support in it, although it is special-cased since ceilometer was retired 
> before we even made the service-types-authority:
> 
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/python-openstacksdk/tree/openstack/connection.py#n234
> 
> We can either keep it there indefinitely (there is no cost to keeping 
> it, other than that one "self._load('metric')" line) - or we could take 
> this opportunity to purge it from sdk as well.
> 
> BUT - if we're going to remove it from SDK I'd rather we do it in the 
> very-near-future because we're getting closer to a 1.0 for SDK and once 
> that happens if ceilometer is still there ceilometer support will remain 
> until the end of recorded history.
> 
> We could keep it and migrate the heat/mistral/rally/aodh 
> ceilometerclient uses to be SDK uses (although heaven knows how we test 
> that without a ceilometer in devstack)
> 
> I honestly do not have a strong opinion in either direction and welcome 
> input on what people would like to see done.
> 
> Monty
> 

If ceilometer itself is deprecated, do we need to maintain support
in any of our tools?

Doug