[cinder] Deprecating driver versions
sombrafam at gmail.com
Mon Jul 1 11:44:30 UTC 2019
No problem. I just wanted to know if other vendors/maintainers shared the
and concerns we have and if we could have an uniform solutions across all
is not the case.
Em sáb, 29 de jun de 2019 às 15:19, Jay S. Bryant <jungleboyj at gmail.com>
> I appreciate the goal here but I agree with Gorka here.
> The drivers are the vendor's responsibilities and they version them as
> they wish. I think updating the devref some best practices
> recommendations would be good and maybe come to agreement between the
> cores on what the best practices are so that we can try to enforce it to
> some extent through reviews. That is probably the best way forward.
> On 6/28/2019 2:50 AM, Gorka Eguileor wrote:
> > On 27/06, Erlon Cruz wrote:
> >> Hey folks,
> >> Driver versions has being a source of a lot of confusions with
> >> Most of our drivers
> >> have a version number and history that are updated as the developers
> >> new fixes and
> >> features. Drivers also have a VERSION variable in the version class that
> >> should be bumped by
> >> developers. The problem with that is:
> >> - sometimes folks from the community just push patches on drivers,
> >> its hard to bump
> >> every vendor version correctly;
> >> - that relies in the human factor to remember adding it, and usually
> >> that fails;
> >> - if we create a bugfix and bump the version, the backport to older
> >> branches will carry the
> >> version, which will not reflect the correct driver code;
> >> So, the solution I'm proposing for this is that we use the Cinder
> >> versions and remove all
> >> version strings for drivers. Every new release we get a version. For
> >> versions, from time to
> >> time the PTL bumps the stable version and we have an accurate ways to
> >> describe the code.
> >> If we need to backport and send something to the costumer, we can do the
> >> backport, poke
> >> the PTL, and he will generate another version which can be downloaded on
> >> github or via PIP,
> >> and present the version to our costumers.
> >> So, what are your thought around this? Anyone else has had problems with
> >> that? What would
> >> be the implications of removing the driver version strings?
> >> Erlon
> > Hi Erlon,
> > I am personally against removing the drivers versions, as I find them
> > convenient and think they are good practice.
> > A possible solution for the driver versioning is for a driver to
> > designate a minor version per OpenStack release and use the patch
> > version to track changes. This way one can always backport a patch and
> > will just need to increase the patch version in the backport patch.
> > Maybe we can have this formally described in our devref. We tell
> > driver developers they can do whatever they want with the versioning in
> > master, but backports must not backport the version as it is and instead
> > increase the patch version.
> > What do you think?
> > If I remember correctly there are some drivers that only increase the
> > version once per release.
> > Cheers,
> > Gorka.
> >>  https://releases.openstack.org/teams/cinder.html
> >> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openstack-discuss