On 27 January 2015 at 09:56, Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote:

> <moved post to bottom for us backwards folk who see the quotes in
> original order>


>> 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?


Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to