On 01/20/2015 08:15 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > On 21 January 2015 at 10:21, Clark Boylan <cboy...@sapwetik.org> wrote: > ... >> This ml thread came up in the TC meeting today and I am responding here >> to catch the thread up with the meeting. The soft update option is the >> suggested fix for non openstack projects that want to have most of their >> requirements managed by global requirements. >> >> For the project structure reform opening things up we should consider >> loosening the criteria to get on the list and make it primarily based on >> technical criteria such as py3k support, license compatibility, upstream >> support/activity, and so on (basically the current criteria with less of >> a focus on where the project comes from if it is otherwise healthy). >> Then individual projects would choose the subset they need to depend on. >> This model should be viable with different domains as well if we go that >> route. >> >> The following is not from the TC meeting but addressing other portions >> of this conversation: >> >> At least one concern with this option is that as the number of total >> requirements goes up is the difficulty in debugging installation >> conflicts becomes more difficult too. I have suggested that we could >> write tools to help with this. Install bisection based on pip logs for >> example, but these tools are still theoretical so I may be >> overestimating their usefulness. >> >> To address the community scaling aspect I think you push a lot of work >> back on deployers/users if we don't curate requirements for anything >> that ends up tagged as "production ready" (or whatever the equivalent >> tag becomes). Essentially we are saying "this doesn't scale for us so >> now you deal with the fallout. Have fun", which isn't very friendly to >> people consuming the software. We already have an absurd number of >> requirements and management of them has appeared to scale. I don't >> foresee my workload going up if we open up the list as suggested. > > Perhaps I missed something, but the initial request wasn't about > random packages, it was about other stackforge clients - these are > things in the ecosystem! I'm glad we have technical solutions, but it > just seems odd to me that adding them would ever have been > controversial.
Well, I think Clark and I have different opinions of how much of a pain unwinding the requirements are, and how long these tend to leave the gate broken. I am happy to also put it in a "somebody elses problem field" for resolving the issues. :) Honestly, I think we're actually at a different point, where we need to stop assuming that the sane way to deal with python is to install it into system libraries, and just put every service in a venv and get rid of global requirements entirely. Global requirements was a scaling fix for getting to 10 coexisting projects. I don't think it actually works well with 50 ecosystem projects. Which is why I proposed the domains solution instead. > On the pip solver side, joe gordon was working on a thing to install a > fixed set of packages by bypassing the pip resolver... not sure how > thats progressing. I think if we are talking seriously about bypassing the pip resolver, we should step back and think about that fact. Because now we're producting a custom installation process that will produce an answer for us, which is completely different than any answer that anyone else is getting for how to get a coherent system. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __________________________________________________________________________ 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