On Nov 24, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/24/2014 03:11 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>> Dan Smith wrote:
>>>> 3. vish brought up one draw back of versioned objects: the difficulty in
>>>> cherry picking commits for stable branches - Is this a show stopper?.
>>> After some discussion with some of the interested parties, we're
>>> planning to add a third .z element to the version numbers and use that
>>> to handle backports in the same way that we do for RPC:
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134623/
>>>> Next steps:
>>>> - Jay suggested making a second spec that would lay out what it would
>>>> look like if we used google protocol buffers.
>>>> - Dan: do you need some help in making this happen, do we need some
>>>> volunteers?
>>> I'm not planning to look into this, especially since we discussed it a
>>> couple years ago when deciding to do what we're currently doing. If
>>> someone else does, creates a thing that is demonstrably more useful than
>>> what we have, and provides a migration plan, then cool. Otherwise, I'm
>>> not really planning to stop what I'm doing at the moment.
>>>> - Are there any other concrete things we can do to get this usable by
>>>> other projects in a timely manner?
>>> To be honest, since the summit, I've not done anything with the current
>>> oslo spec, given the potential for doing something different that was
>>> raised. I know that cinder folks (at least) are planning to start
>>> copying code into their tree to get moving.
>>> I think we need a decision to either (a) dump what we've got into the
>>> proposed library (or incubator) and plan to move forward incrementally
>>> or (b) each continue doing our own thing(s) in our own trees while we
>>> wait for someone to create something based on GPB that does what we want.
>> I'd prefer (a); although I hope there is a owner/lead for this library
>> (dan?) and it's not just dumped on the oslo folks as that won't work out
>> so well I think. It'd be nice if said owner could also look into (b) but
>> that's at there own (or other library supporter) time I suppose (I
>> personally think (b) would probably allow for a larger community of
>> folks to get involved in this library, would potentially reduce the
>> amount of custom/overlapping code and other similar benefits...).
> I gave some comments at the very end of the summit session on this, and I 
> want to be clear about something. I definitely like GPB, and there's definite 
> overlap with some things that GPB does and things that nova.objects does.
> That said, I don't think it's wise to make oslo-versionedobjects be a totally 
> new thing. I think we should use nova.objects as the base of a new 
> oslo-versionedobjects library, and we should evolve oslo-versionedobjects 
> slowly over time, eventually allowing for nova, ironic, and whomever else is 
> currently using nova/objects, to align with an Oslo library vision for this.
> So, in short, I also think a) is the appropriate path to take.


When Dan and I talked about this, I said I would take care of exporting the 
nova objects git history into a new repository. We’ve had some other things 
blocking work in Oslo that I needed to handle, but I expect to be able to pick 
up this work soon. If someone else wants to jump in, I’ll be happy to give a 
brain dump of what I planned to do for the export, since the existing Oslo tool 
that we use on the incubator isn’t quite right for the job.


> Best,
> -jay
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to