j...@redhat.com wrote: >> * Switch to rootwrap_config and deprecate root_helper >> This would fully align quantum-rootwrap with nova-rootwrap. However I'm >> not sure it's reasonable to deprecate root_helper=sudo in Folsom, given >> how little tested quantum-rootwrap seems to be on Folsom. Maybe just >> introducing rootwrap_config but leaving the deprecation message out ? >> You can have a look at: >> >> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/commit/2b2c97eb5ca332ce7d1f83e4fd2e81fabe0acb66 >> > > Ok. I did talk through this issue with Bob yesterday, but I'd be > lying if I said I understood it all yet. > > Let me ask this: Since, as you say, there's not a lot of evidence of > traffic through quantum-rootwrap, is there an obvious downside to > deprecating root_helper=sudo at this stage? I'm not advocating either > way, just trying to get up to speed on all the parts of the issue.
Well, since there is not a lot of evidence of traffic through the rootwrap, that means almost everyone is using root_helper=sudo. Marking it deprecated, and recommending that everyone switches to the (untested yet) rootwrap doesn't sound that much like a great idea. I think we should deprecate root_helper=sudo when we are confident that most people are using rootwrap and are satisfied with it. > My goal is by end of today , or tomorrow morning latest, to have at > least a reasonably complete understanding of the changes necessary to > get the quantum-rootwrap facility up to parity with nova/cinder. If I > get to that deadline and I'm not there, I'll probably punt, as it > becomes too much of a hail-mary to get the stuff stabilized and > reviewed etc by tues. That sounds reasonable. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp