On 27 January 2015 at 09:56, Clint Byrum <[email protected]> wrote: > <moved post to bottom for us backwards folk who see the quotes in > original order>
</pedant> >> TripleO has done per service venvs for a couple years now, and it >> doesn't solve the fragility issue that our unbounded deps cause. It >> avoids most but not all conflicting deps within OpenStack, and none of >> the 'upstream broke us' cases. >> > > Note that we are not testing per-service venvs anymore because of the > extreme high cost of building the controller images with so many separate > venvs. We just put the openstack namespaced pieces in one big "openstack" > venv now. Yes, but the experience we have about the limitations of per-service venvs is still relevant, no? Are you really saying 'do per-service venvs because they work well', or are you agreeing with me that they don't solve the problems plaguing the gate? -Rob -- Robert Collins <[email protected]> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
