On 24 January 2014 22:26, Clint Byrum <[email protected]> wrote: >> This enourmous amount of repositories adds too much infrustructural >> complexity, and maintaining the changes in in consistent and reliable >> manner becomes a really tricky tasks. We often have changes which require >> modifing two or more repositories - and thus we have to make several >> changesets in gerrit, targeting different repositories. Quite often the
As does adding any feature with e.g. networking - change neutron, neutronclient and nova, or block storage, change cinder, cinderclient and nova... This isn't complexity - it's not the connecting together of different things in inappropriate ways - its really purity, you're having to treat each thing as a stable library API. >> dependencies between these changesets are not obvious, the patches get >> reviewed and approved on wrong order (yes, this also questions the quality >> of the code review, but that is a different topic), which causes in >> inconsostent state of the repositories. Actually it says your tests are insufficient, otherwise things wouldn't be able to land :). > So, as somebody who does not run Murano, but who does care a lot about > continuous delivery, I actually think keeping them separate is a great > way to make sure you have ongoing API stability. +1 bet me to that by just minutes:) > Since all of those pieces can run on different machines, having the APIs > able to handle both "the old way" and "the new way" is quite helpful in > a large scale roll out where you want to keep things running while you > update. > > Anyway, that may not matter much, but it is one way to think about it. Indeed :) -Rob -- Robert Collins <[email protected]> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
