On 07/16/2014 07:27 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 08:12:47AM -0700, Clark Boylan wrote: >> >>> I am worried that we would just regress to the current process because >>> we have tried something similar to this previously and were forced to >>> regress to the current process. >> >> IMHO the longer we wait between updating the gate to new versions >> the bigger the problems we create for ourselves. eg we were switching >> from 0.9.8 released Dec 2011, to 1.1.1 released Jun 2013, so we >> were exposed to over 1 + 1/2 years worth of code churn in a single >> event. The fact that we only hit a couple of bugs in that, is actually >> remarkable given the amount of feature development that had gone into >> libvirt in that time. If we had been tracking each intervening libvirt >> release I expect the majority of updates would have had no ill effect >> on us at all. For the couple of releases where there was a problem we >> would not be forced to rollback to a version years older again, we'd >> just drop back to the previous release at most 1 month older. > > This is a really good point. As someone who has to deal with packaging > issues constantly, it is odd to me that libvirt is one of the few places > where we depend on upstream packaging. We constantly pull in new python > dependencies from pypi that are not packaged in ubuntu. If we had to > wait for packaging before merging the whole system would grind to a halt. > > I think we should be updating our libvirt version more frequently vy > installing from source or our own ppa instead of waiting for the ubuntu > team to package it.
Shrinking in terror from what I'm about to say ... but I actually agree with this, There are SEVERAL logistical issues we'd need to sort, not the least of which involve the actual mechanics of us doing that and properly gating,etc. But I think that, like the python depends where we tell distros what version we _need_ rather than using what version they have, libvirt, qemu, ovs and maybe one or two other things are areas in which we may want or need to have a strongish opinion. I'll bring this up in the room tomorrow at the Infra/QA meetup, and will probably be flayed alive for it - but maybe I can put forward a straw-man proposal on how this might work. Monty
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
