On 01/14/2015 03:55 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 13/01/15 14:31 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 01/13/2015 02:10 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>> On 01/13/2015 12:39 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
>>>> On 13/01/15 10:01, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-01-13 07:46:38 -0500 (-0500), Sean Dague wrote:
>>>>>> Why doesn't rally just remove itself from projects.txt, then there
>>>>>> would be no restrictions on what it adds.
>>>>>
>>>>> I second this recommendation. If Rally wants to depend on things
>>>>> which are not part of OpenStack and not required to run or test
>>>>> OpenStack in an official capacity (and since it's not an official
>>>>> OpenStack project it's entirely within its rights to want to do
>>>>> that), then forcing it to comply with the list of requirements for
>>>>> official OpenStack projects is an unnecessarily restrictive choice.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW I don't really agree with this advice. The purpose of
>>>> openstack/requirements is to ensure that it's possible to create a
>>>> distribution of OpenStack without conflicting version requirements, not
>>>> to force every project to use every dependency listed. As such, some
>>>> co-ordination around client libraries for related projects seems
>>>> like it
>>>> ought to be an uncontroversial addition. (Obviously it's easy to
>>>> imagine
>>>> potential additions that would legitimately be highly controversial,
>>>> but
>>>> IMHO this isn't one of them.) Saying that we require people to use our
>>>> tools to get into the club but that our tools are not going to
>>>> accommodate them in any way until they are in sounds a bit too close to
>>>> "Go away" to my ears.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> I think as we grow global-requirements probably needs to be broken up
>> into functional lists. What's allowed in base-iass, what's allowed in
>> application services, what's allowed in docs, etc, etc.
>>
>> The complexity of keeping the g-r list actually working goes up sort of
>> n^2 as the size of it, because pip doesn't have a real solver. This is a
>> barely functional set of plate spinning so "just add everything" misses
>> the point that the breaks get more and more difficult to unwind.
>>
>> If someone is up for stepping up and contributing to breaking up into
>> "domains", please do. But I think while this remains a global list we
>> really do need to be a bit careful here.
> 
> Do we really need a per-domain g-r?
> 
> With the upcoming changes in the openstack governance model, I believe
> this won't scale even if we break it into per-domain basis. Some
> questions that need answeres are:
> 
> - Who's going to review the per domain g-r ?
> 
> If it's a centralized team, then it won't definitely scale. If it's
> the domain team then, what's the real point of having these
> requirements?
> 
> - How are we going to support the creation and maintnance of these g-r
>  in the gate? Are they actually worth it?
> 
> 
> While I understand why we have g-r, I really don't think it'll scale
> for a broader community as we're envisioning it. With that in mind,
> I'd probably recommend to have 1 requirements group for the base-caas
> integrated gate and let other projects and groups have their own
> requirements. That is, non base-caas projects should get the versions
> of their common requirements from g-r so that they won't conflict if
> they're installed alongside with any of the base-caas projects. But
> other than those base requirements, I'd let non base-caas projects
> have what they need (which is pretty much what heat's team has done
> with the contrib packages, AFAICT).
> 
> I know this opens the doors for version conflicts between the
> requirements of non base-caas projects but I think this is a more
> welcoming (and non-blocking) way to do things until we've a better
> one.
> 
> Hope the above makes some sense.... I blame the lack of coffee if it
> doesn't,
> Flavio

We have the base infrastructure of that in devstack today with a SOFT
requirements update -
https://github.com/openstack-dev/devstack/blob/master/functions-common#L1696-L1704

If you are not in projects.txt, and you set your REQUIREMENTS_MODE=soft
in your devstack run, we will leave extra dependencies untouched.
Probably a few more bits required to make it really easy to expose, but
that direction is also feasable.

The reason I brought up domains though is that some groups really want
the facility to have common requirements lists across a domain. Like the
OpenStack Docs team. They've currently inserted a ton of stuff in g-r
that really shouldn't be there because they have a lot of git trees, and
the synchronization is a nice feature.

However, if there were domain specific lists, that would be fine. A
collection of projects that want to coordinate could all agree on a
domain specific set of lists, and off we go. Maybe that list wouldn't
even need to be contained in the main repo, it could be in a sub repo so
have different approvers.

        -Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to