Open Stack

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 08:53:21AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Andrea Frittoli's message of 2018-06-26 13:35:11 +0100:
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, 1:08 pm Thierry Carrez, <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > My suggestion: tempest has to be compatible with all supported releases
> > > > (of both services and plugins) OR be branched.
> > > > [...]
> > > I tend to agree with Dmitry... We have a model for things that need
> > > release alignment, and that's the cycle-bound series. The reason tempest
> > > is branchless was because there was no compatibility issue. If the split
> > > of tempest plugins introduces a potential incompatibility, then I would
> > > prefer aligning tempest to the existing model rather than introduce a
> > > parallel tempest-specific cycle just so that tempest can stay
> > > release-independent...
> > >
> > > I seem to remember there were drawbacks in branching tempest, though...
> > > Can someone with functioning memory brain cells summarize them again ?
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Branchless Tempest enforces api stability across branches.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time taking this statement seriously
> when the current source of tension is that the Tempest API itself
> is breaking for its plugins.
> 
> Maybe rather than talking about how to release compatible things
> together, we should go back and talk about why Tempest's API is changing
> in a way that can't be made backwards-compatible. Can you give some more
> detail about that?
> 

Well it's not, if it did that would violate all the stability guarantees
provided by Tempest's library and plugin interface. I've not ever heard of
these kind of backwards incompatibilities in those interfaces and we go to
all effort to make sure we don't break them. Where did the idea that
backwards incompatible changes where being introduced come from?

That being said things are definitely getting confused here, all andreaf was
talking about the branchless nature is ensuring we run the same tests against
service REST APIs, making sure we have API stability between releases in the
services when we say we do. (to answer ttx's question)

As for this whole thread I don't understand any of the points being brought up
in the original post or any of the follow ons, things seem to have been confused
from the start. The ask from users at the summit was simple. When a new OpenStack
release is pushed we push a tempest release to mark that (the next one will be
19.0.0 to mark Rocky). Users were complaining that many plugins don't have a
corresponding version to mark support for a new release. So when trying to run
against a rocky cloud you get tempest 19.0.0 and then a bunch of plugins for
various services at different sha1s which have to be manually looked up based
on dates. All users wanted at the summit was a tag for plugins like tempest
does with the first number in:

https://docs.openstack.org/tempest/latest/overview.html#release-versioning

which didn't seem like a bad idea to me. I'm not sure the best mechanism to
accomplish this, because I agree with much of what plugin maintainers were
saying on the thread about wanting to control their own releases. But the
desire to make sure users have a tag they can pull for the addition or
removal of a supported release makes sense as something a plugin should do.


-Matt Treinish
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20180626/29e69fed/attachment.sig>