[TripleO] criteria for deprecating services

Dan Prince dprince at redhat.com
Mon Mar 4 13:11:21 UTC 2019

On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 15:43 -0700, Alex Schultz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:24 PM Dan Prince <dprince at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Recently we've been cleaning house in some of of the TripleO
> > supported
> > services.
> > 
> > We removed MongoDB as RDO was also dropping it. I guess we needed
> > to
> > follow suite as our CI is also based on the packages there.
> > 
> > For other services (Designate for example) if the RDO packages
> > exist
> > and we already have support do we really need to deprecate them?
> > Having
> > the ability to deploy some of the lesser used but still active
> > OpenStack projects with our deployment framework is nice for
> > developers
> > and users alike. Especially when you want to try out a new
> > services.
> > 
> It's the long term maintenance of them to ensure they continue to
> work
> (packaging/promotions/requirement syncing). If no one is watching
> them
> and making sure they still work, I'm not sure it's worth saying they
> are "supported". Much like the baremetal support that we had, when we
> drop any testing we might as well mark them deprecated since there is
> no way to know if they still "work" the next day.  Adding and
> maintaining services is non-trivial so unless it's actively used, I
> don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to trim our "supported" list
> to a set of known good services.
> Just in the last two or three weeks I've had to go address packaging
> problems with Vitrage[0] and Tacker[1] because requirements changed
> in
> the project and the packages weren't kept up to date so the puppet
> module CI was broken.  No one noticed this was broken until we went
> to
> go update some unrelated things and found out that they were broken.
> The same thing happens in TripleO too where a breakage in a less than
> supported service takes away time for more important work.  The cost
> to keep these things working is > 0.

Agree the cost isn't zero. But it also isn't high. And there is value
to a project having a deep bench of services from which to choose and
try out. The existance of at least some "niche" services in TripleO
provides some value to our users and perhaps even an argument to use
TripleO as it would be considered a feature to be able to try out these
services. Perhaps even partially implemented ones in some cases still
have value (no HA support for example).

I just spent the time to "flatten" many of these services thinking they
would stay for awhile. Many of us are willing to chip in to keep some
of these I think.

> [0] https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/19006/
> [1] https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/18830/
> > Rather than debate these things ad-hoc on some of the various
> > reviews I
> > figured it work asking here. Do we have a criteria for when it is
> > appropriate to deprecate a service that is implemented and fully
> > working? Is it costing us that much in terms of CI and resources to
> > keep a few of these services around?
> > 
> Do you have a definition of "fully implemented"?  Some of the
> services
> that have been added were added but never actually tested. Designate
> only recently was covered with testing.  Things like Congress have
> never been tested (like via tempest) and we've only done an install
> but no actual service verification.  I would say Designate might be
> closer to fully implemented but Tacker/Congress would not be
> considered implemented.
> Given that we've previously been asked to reduce our CI footprint, I
> think it's hard to say is it really costing that much because the
> answer would be yes if it has even the slightest impact.  The fewer
> services we support, the less scenarios we have to have, the less
> complex deployments we have and the less resource it consumes.

For the services we agree to keep we could always run them in a lower
bandwidth CI framework. Something like periodic jobs. Understood these
would occasionally get broken but the upstream feedback loop would at
least exist and the services could stay. And we'd still be able to
reduce our CI resources as well.

> Thanks,
> -Alex
> > Dan
> > 
> > 

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list