On Aug 23, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Maru Newby <ma...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2014, at 4:06 AM, Sumit Naiksatam <sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kyle Mestery <mest...@mestery.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA512 >>>> >>>> On 20/08/14 18:28, Salvatore Orlando wrote: >>>>> Some comments inline. >>>>> >>>>> Salvatore >>>>> >>>>> On 20 August 2014 17:38, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com >>>>> <mailto:ihrac...@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I've read the proposal for incubator as described at [1], and I >>>>> have several comments/concerns/suggestions to this. >>>>> >>>>> Overall, the idea of giving some space for experimentation that >>>>> does not alienate parts of community from Neutron is good. In that >>>>> way, we may relax review rules and quicken turnaround for preview >>>>> features without loosing control on those features too much. >>>>> >>>>> Though the way it's to be implemented leaves several concerns, as >>>>> follows: >>>>> >>>>> 1. From packaging perspective, having a separate repository and >>>>> tarballs seems not optimal. As a packager, I would better deal with >>>>> a single tarball instead of two. Meaning, it would be better to >>>>> keep the code in the same tree. >>>>> >>>>> I know that we're afraid of shipping the code for which some users >>>>> may expect the usual level of support and stability and >>>>> compatibility. This can be solved by making it explicit that the >>>>> incubated code is unsupported and used on your user's risk. 1) The >>>>> experimental code wouldn't probably be installed unless explicitly >>>>> requested, and 2) it would be put in a separate namespace (like >>>>> 'preview', 'experimental', or 'staging', as the call it in Linux >>>>> kernel world [2]). >>>>> >>>>> This would facilitate keeping commit history instead of loosing it >>>>> during graduation. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I know that people don't like to be called experimental or >>>>> preview or incubator... And maybe neutron-labs repo sounds more >>>>> appealing than an 'experimental' subtree in the core project. >>>>> Well, there are lots of EXPERIMENTAL features in Linux kernel that >>>>> we actively use (for example, btrfs is still considered >>>>> experimental by Linux kernel devs, while being exposed as a >>>>> supported option to RHEL7 users), so I don't see how that naming >>>>> concern is significant. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I think this is the whole point of the discussion around the >>>>>> incubator and the reason for which, to the best of my knowledge, >>>>>> no proposal has been accepted yet. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I wonder where discussion around the proposal is running. Is it public? >>>> >>> The discussion started out privately as the incubation proposal was >>> put together, but it's now on the mailing list, in person, and in IRC >>> meetings. Lets keep the discussion going on list now. >>> >> >> In the spirit of keeping the discussion going, I think we probably >> need to iterate in practice on this idea a little bit before we can >> crystallize on the policy and process for this new repo. Here are few >> ideas on how we can start this iteration: >> >> * Namespace for the new repo: >> Should this be in the neutron namespace, or a completely different >> namespace like "neutron labs"? Perhaps creating a separate namespace >> will help the packagers to avoid issues of conflicting package owners >> of the namespace. > > I don’t think there is a technical requirement to choose a new namespace. > Python supports sharing a namespace, and packaging can support this feature > (see: oslo.*).
If the point of the incubator is to signal to deployers that the code isn’t fully supported, you may want to use a different namespace for the python/system packages as well. Doug > >> >> * Dependency on Neutron (core) repository: >> We would need to sort this out so that we can get UTs to run and pass >> in the new repo. Can we set the dependency on Neutron milestone >> releases? We already publish tar balls for the milestone releases, but >> I am not sure we publish these as packages to pypi. If not could we >> start doing that? With this in place, the incubator would always lag >> the Neutron core by at the most one milestone release. > > Given that it is possible to specify a dependency as a branch/hash/tag in a > git repo [1], I’m not sure it’s worth figuring out how to target tarballs. > Master branch of the incubation repo could then target the master branch of > the Neutron repo and always be assured of being current, and then released > versions could target milestone tags or released versions. > > 1: http://pip.readthedocs.org/en/latest/reference/pip_install.html#git > >> >> * Modules overlapping with the Neutron (core) repository: >> We could initially start with the features that required very little >> or no changes to the Neutron core, to avoid getting into the issue of >> blocking on changes to the Neutron (core) repository before progress >> can be made in the incubator. > > +1 > > I agree that it would be in an incubated effort’s best interest to put off > doing invasive changes to the Neutron tree as long as possible to ensure > sufficient time to hash out the best approach. > >> >> * Packaging of ancillary code (CLI, Horizon, Heat): >> We start by adding these as subdirectories inside each feature. The >> packaging folks are going to find it difficult to package this. >> However, can we start with this approach, and have a parallel >> discussion on how we can evolved this strategy? Perhaps the individual >> projects might decide to allow support for the Neutron incubator >> features once they can actually see what goes into the incubator, >> and/or other projects might also follow the incubator approach. > > Maybe I’m missing something, but aren’t the integration points available for > the ancillary code the problem that needs solving (if it isn’t already)? For > example, it doesn’t matter the python package name of a plugin, so long as it > is installed on the system Neutron can be configured to use it. I would hope > we could have similar assurances for integration code when the incubator repo > is packaged. > > > m. > >> >> If we have loose consensus on the above, some of us folks who are >> involved with features that are candidates for the incubator (e.g. >> GBP, LBaaS), can immediately start iterating on this plan, and report >> back our progress in a specified time frame. >> >> Thanks, >> ~Sumit. > > > <snip> > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
