On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Mark McLoughlin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 15:24 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> We can avoid adding to the problem by putting each new library in its >> own package. We still want the Oslo name attached for libraries that >> are really only meant to be used by OpenStack projects, and so we need >> a naming convention. I'm not entirely happy with the "crammed >> together" approach for oslotest and oslosphinx. At one point Dims and >> I talked about using a prefix "oslo_" instead of just "oslo", so we >> would have "oslo_db", "oslo_i18n", etc. That's also a bit ugly, >> though. Opinions? > > Uggh :)
Indeed. I'm not even allowed to name pets here at home, so if someone else wants to propose a standard please do. :-) > >> Given the number of problems we have now (I help about 1 dev per week >> unbreak their system), > > I've seen you do this - kudos on your patience. > >> I think we should also consider renaming the >> existing libraries to not use the namespace package. That isn't a >> trivial change, since it will mean updating every consumer as well as >> the packaging done by distros. If we do decide to move them, I will >> need someone to help put together a migration plan. Does anyone want >> to volunteer to work on that? > > One thing to note for any migration plan on this - we should use a new > pip package name for the new version so people with e.g. > > oslo.config>=1.2.0 > > don't automatically get updated to a version which has the code in a > different place. You should need to change to e.g. > > osloconfig>=1.4.0 Yes, good point. > >> Before we make any changes, it would be good to know how bad this >> problem still is. Do developers still see issues on clean systems, or >> are all of the problems related to updating devstack boxes? Are people >> figuring out how to fix or work around the situation on their own? Can >> we make devstack more aggressive about deleting oslo libraries before >> re-installing them? Are there other changes we can make that would be >> less invasive? > > I don't have any great insight, but hope we can figure something out. > It's crazy to think that even though namespace packages appear to work > pretty well initially, it might end up being so unworkable we would need > to switch. > > Mark. > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
