[all] Dangerous trend toward too many release-independent components
hberaud at redhat.com
Wed Sep 8 09:31:31 UTC 2021
Le mer. 8 sept. 2021 Ã 10:29, Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org> a Ã©crit :
> On 9/8/21 1:21 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2021-09-08 00:46:30 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > [...]
> >> In fact, I was particularly confuse to realize that something like
> >> taskflow was declared release-independent since Wallaby. Now, if
> >> I'm told that it is loosely coupled with OpenStack, knowing that
> >> it's a key component, I'm not sure what I should do. Should I get
> >> taskflow updated to 4.6.2 in Wallaby, so I get bugfixes? Or is it
> >> safer to just upgrade it for Xena?
> >> I took Taskflow as an example (you can reply to me about Taskflow
> >> in particular, but that's not the point I'm trying to make). But
> >> it could have been something else (deptcollector? oslo.i18n?).
> >> What I'm trying to say is that as a downstream consumer, it's from
> >> hard to impossible to know what to do for the past OpenStack
> >> releases regarding these release-independent components: should I
> >> update them or not? It is unrealistic to hope that one can track
> >> what component has been updated to a newer version in the stable
> >> release CI.
> > Specific examples are great actually, because it at least lets us
> > try to formulate a specific answer and then reason about whether a
> > similar answer can be generally applied to other related scenarios.
> > So let's take taskflow in Wallaby and Xena:
> > The closest thing we have to a recommendation for versions of
> > "outside" dependencies (which is essentially what we treat
> > release-independent deliverables as) is the upper-constraints.txt
> > file on each branch of the openstack/requirements repository. In
> > the case of taskflow, at the moment the stable/wallaby branch upper
> > constraint for taskflow is 4.6.0, which is the version we indicate
> > all OpenStack projects should test their stable/wallaby changes
> > against. That entry was last updated by
> > https://review.opendev.org/773620 which merged to the master branch
> > of openstack/requirements in February, well before the coordinated
> > Wallaby release.
> Ok, so your recommendation is that, for each and every component that is
> marked release-independent, I should be checking the global
> requirements. I just wrote that this is unrealistic that a human does
> such a check.
> If you didn't know, in Debian, Michal Arbet (who co-maintains OpenStack
> with me together in Debian) wrote this:
> This VersionStatus.py checks for what's in
> https://releases.openstack.org/, for example in
> https://releases.openstack.org/xena/index.html for the Xena upcoming
> The result output of the os-version-checker is this page:
> Thanks to this page, anyone can know the status of OpenStack packaging
> on all the different branches we maintain. If you look at it right now,
> you'll notice that we're up-to-date, as we packaged all non-clients and
> all clients library, but we didn't package new versions of the puppet
> manifests yet (I'm waiting for the RCs to do that).
> If you click on the buster-victoria button, and look for Taskflow,
> you'll see that it's up-to-date. If you click on bullseye-xena, and
> search for Taskflow, you will ... find nothing! That's because taskflow
> doesn't appear in https://releases.openstack.org/xena/index.html since
> it is release-independent. As a result, I'm left with no other choice
> than being very careful and manually check the global-requirements.
> Every check that is supposed to be done by a human isn't reliable. It'd
> be nice if I had a way to automatically check for this. The thing is,
> the global-requirements is full of information, some of it not relevant
> to my own use case, and it's hard to check automatically. First of all,
> because the Python module names as in PyPi, do not necessarily match the
> package names. Also, because some artifacts are not relevant to Debian.
> For example, I have no use of many TripleO stuff, and some services are
> simply not packaged in Debian.
> In an ideal world, we'd have an API to check for all of this, rather
> than digging through the release HTML pages.
> > It seems like what you're asking for is this:
> > Or rather, that's the closest thing we have to what I think you're
> > requesting. If you follow the commit history of that file, you'll
> > see recent updates for it on the stable/wallaby branch do consist
> > almost entirely of stable point releases of cycle-oriented projects:
> > Does this help narrow the scope of concern to the point where we can
> > better reason about the problems or challenges you're facing?
> Unfortunately, while it is part of the answer, due to what I explained
> just above, it is very hard to exploit the available data without a
> real, long effort on our side to fix this. :/
> One solution could probably be for *US* (downstream distros) to write
> some kind of API as I just wrote, and make it available for everyone on
> releases.openstack.org. Are Red Hat people also interested by such an
> effort? Any pointer where we should attempt to propose patches?
An API seems quite a good idea
I'm ok to give help on this point with my upstream cap and my Red Hat cap.
As release manager I added your proposition to our "things to changes" on
our release process and tools.
I think that it should be discussed first to see how to implement it and
how to host it.
I think that the technical details would be a transversal decision between
the infra team and the release team and the volunteers on this topic.
However you should notice that we are near Xena's deadline, and, so, for
now, I don't think that we will have the time to work on this topic.
Also, although I'm volunteering to help, you should notice that the
release team will have another PTL for Y, so, the lead of this topic is at
the discretion of my replacant.
I think a good starting point could be to design some specs or propose some
related goals, so, Thomas, maybe you could start by creating something like
that with your expectations. It will allow us to start this topic, share
our different feedback and our expectations on it (our different
viewpoints, at least from the release team, infra team, and
Hopefully it will help us.
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openstack-discuss