Open Stack

On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 10:50 +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 12/10/21 9:16 AM, Jean-Philippe Evrard wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, at 01:18, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
> > > Yes, those are the inconsistency we currently have in the Skyline 
> > > project, but that is not what they will stick to. In Yoga PTG[1], the 
> > > skyline team iterates through all these points and plans to
> > > improve those and be consistent with the other OpenStack projects. They 
> > > said they will
> > > work on packaging, PTI, using Oslo code etc.
> > > 
> > > Boxiang Zhu mentioned the same in the governance patch also[2].
> > 
> > The questions I have still stand: Do we need to be more lax in the governance to not _require_ to follow the PTI (and/or have an intention to follow through)? Can the TC make an exception?
> 
> IMO, we shouldn't allow an exception. Otherwise, it's going to become
> super hard to contribute to OpenStack if every project is different. It
> is a pandora box that should not be opened.
i would agree with this we should not make an excption however we could work on evolving the PTI over time.
> 
> That being said, I don't think poetry is a problem for Debian anymore:
> it's been packaged already. :)
poetry i see as less of a porblem then using make honestly.
as someone who has avoided using make for most of the last decade moderatly succesfully that is perhaps the most objectionable
part of its build system.

one concern i would have with using poetry is just makeing sure that upper-constratints.txt is used correctly
based on https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry/pull/4005 and https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry/issues/3225 
i dont think that poetry will ever actuly support upper-constarits so we would need to have some tooling to generate the equivalent for there format.
i still think coinstallablity is an important requirement for being an offical python porject and moving to poetry or other packaging may not support that.

i recently have been workign on a new python project which i was considering proposing to opendev/openstack at some point in the future
i used https://pyscaffold.org/ to generate the skeloton of the project and do have a pyproject.toml
https://github.com/SeanMooney/arbiterd/blob/master/pyproject.toml but have intentioally choose to continue to use setuptools so that it would
be simple to support the pti in the future i think the main delta i have right now is i dont have my deps in requirement.txt but i can simply generate that in the future
https://github.com/SeanMooney/arbiterd/blob/master/setup.cfg#L49-L77  that is just because pyscaffold put them in setup.cfg and i havent bothered to move them.

i likely would have to add pbr for ChangeLog and AUTHORS generation and some minor other tweaks but you can have a pretty moddern an painless setup and be pti compliant
at the same time.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>