On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Robert Collins wrote:
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?
To take this topic even further from its original subject I'd just like to remind at least myself that the reason we have problems in the gate is because there are real problems that actually exist or will exist soon and that catching them before they leak out is is presumably exactly why we have a gate. Given a lot more resources we should always pip -U and never put upper version caps in requirements.txt. Then when stuff breaks do the good work to untangle the mess and fix the problem. Not just for us but for the commonweal. Breaking stuff tends to be how stuff gets fixed. Yes, I'm talking idealistic impractical hooey here, but I think it is important to remember these things. So whereas earlier I said I was keen on virtualenvs, now that I actually think about it some I think we're better off creating a chaotic crucible of everything in one fiery cauldron of truth and using breakage in the gate as a way of marshalling resources. Do I expect to see that happen? Sadly, not really. -- Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent __________________________________________________________________________ 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