Hi all, Ihar and I discussed this on IRC, and are going forward with option 2 unless someone has a big problem with it.
Thanks, Doug On 12/15/14, 8:22 AM, "Doug Wiegley" <do...@a10networks.com> wrote: >Hi Ihar, > >I’m actually in favor of option 2, but it implies a few things about your >time, and I wanted to chat with you before presuming. > >Maintenance can not involve breaking changes. At this point, the co-gate >will block it. Also, oslo graduation changes will have to be made in the >services repos first, and then Neutron. > >Thanks, >doug > > >On 12/15/14, 6:15 AM, "Ihar Hrachyshka" <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA512 >> >>Hi all, >> >>the question arose recently in one of reviews for neutron-*aas repos >>to remove all oslo-incubator code from those repos since it's >>duplicated in neutron main repo. (You can find the link to the review >>at the end of the email.) >> >>Brief hostory: neutron repo was recently split into 4 pieces (main, >>neutron-fwaas, neutron-lbaas, and neutron-vpnaas). The split resulted >>in each repository keeping their own copy of >>neutron/openstack/common/... tree (currently unused in all >>neutron-*aas repos that are still bound to modules from main repo). >> >>As a oslo liaison for the project, I wonder what's the best way to >>manage oslo-incubator files. We have several options: >> >>1. just kill all the neutron/openstack/common/ trees from neutron-*aas >>repositories and continue using modules from main repo. >> >>2. kill all duplicate modules from neutron-*aas repos and leave only >>those that are used in those repos but not in main repo. >> >>3. fully duplicate all those modules in each of four repos that use them. >> >>I think option 1. is a straw man, since we should be able to introduce >>new oslo-incubator modules into neutron-*aas repos even if they are >>not used in main repo. >> >>Option 2. is good when it comes to synching non-breaking bug fixes (or >>security fixes) from oslo-incubator, in that it will require only one >>sync patch instead of e.g. four. At the same time there may be >>potential issues when synchronizing updates from oslo-incubator that >>would break API and hence require changes to each of the modules that >>use it. Since we don't support atomic merges for multiple projects in >>gate, we will need to be cautious about those updates, and we will >>still need to leave neutron-*aas repos broken for some time (though >>the time may be mitigated with care). >> >>Option 3. is vice versa - in theory, you get total decoupling, meaning >>no oslo-incubator updates in main repo are expected to break >>neutron-*aas repos, but bug fixing becomes a huge PITA. >> >>I would vote for option 2., for two reasons: >>- - most oslo-incubator syncs are non-breaking, and we may effectively >>apply care to updates that may result in potential breakage (f.e. >>being able to trigger an integrated run for each of neutron-*aas repos >>with the main sync patch, if there are any concerns). >>- - it will make oslo liaison life a lot easier. OK, I'm probably too >>selfish on that. ;) >>- - it will make stable maintainers life a lot easier. The main reason >>why stable maintainers and distributions like recent oslo graduation >>movement is that we don't need to track each bug fix we need in every >>project, and waste lots of cycles on it. Being able to fix a bug in >>one place only is *highly* anticipated. [OK, I'm quite selfish on that >>one too.] >>- - it's a delusion that there will be no neutron-main syncs that will >>break neutron-*aas repos ever. There can still be problems due to >>incompatibility between neutron main and neutron-*aas code resulted >>EXACTLY because multiple parts of the same process use different >>versions of the same module. >> >>That said, Doug Wiegley (lbaas core) seems to be in favour of option >>3. due to lower coupling that is achieved in that way. I know that >>lbaas team had a bad experience due to tight coupling to neutron >>project in the past, so I appreciate their concerns. >> >>All in all, we should come up with some standard solution for both >>advanced services that are already split out, *and* upcoming vendor >>plugin shrinking initiative. >> >>The initial discussion is captured at: >>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/141427/ >> >>Thanks, >>/Ihar >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) >> >>iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUju0NAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57n5YH/jA4l5DsLgRpw9gYsoSWVGvh >>apmJ4UlnAKhxzc787XImz1VA+ztSyIwAUdEdcfq3gkinP58q7o48oIXOGjFXaBNq >>6qBePC1hflEqZ85Hm4/i5z51qutjW0dyi4y4C6FHgM5NsEkhbh0QIa/u8Hr4F1q6 >>tkr0kDbCbDkiZ8IX1l74VGWQ3QvCNeJkANUg79BqGq+qIVP3BeOHyWqRmpLZFQ6E >>QiUwhiYv5l4HekCEQN8PWisJoqnhbTNjvLBnLD82IitLd5vXnsXfSkxKhv9XeOg/ >>czLUCyr/nJg4aw8Qm0DTjnZxS+BBe5De0Ke4zm2AGePgFYcai8YQPtuOfSJDbXk= >>=D6Gn >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev