On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 02:07 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 06:06 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> > > On 02/20/2015 12:26 AM, Adam Gandelman wrote:
> > > > Its more than just the naming.  In the original proposal,
> > > > requirements.txt is the compiled list of all pinned deps (direct and
> > > > transitive), while requirements.in <http://requirements.in> reflects
> > > > what people will actually use.  Whatever is in requirements.txt affects
> > > > the egg's requires.txt. Instead, we can keep requirements.txt unchanged
> > > > and have it still be the canonical list of dependencies, while
> > > > reqiurements.out/requirements.gate/requirements.whatever is an upstream
> > > > utility we produce and use to keep things sane on our slaves.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe all we need is:
> > > >
> > > > * update the existing post-merge job on the requirements repo to
> > produce
> > > > a requirements.txt (as it does now) as well the compiled version.
> > > >
> > > > * modify devstack in some way with a toggle to have it process
> > > > dependencies from the compiled version when necessary
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure how the second bit jives with the existing devstack
> > > > installation code, specifically with the libraries from git-or-master
> > > > but we can probably add something to warm the system with dependencies
> > > > from the compiled version prior to calling pip/setup.py/etc
> > > > <http://setup.py/etc>
> > >
> > > It sounds like you are suggesting we take the tool we use to ensure that
> > > all of OpenStack is installable together in a unified way, and change
> > > it's installation so that it doesn't do that any more.
> > >
> > > Which I'm fine with.
> > >
> > > But if we are doing that we should just whole hog give up on the idea
> > > that OpenStack can be run all together in a single environment, and just
> > > double down on the devstack venv work instead.
> >
> > I don't disagree with your conclusion, but that's not how I read what he
> > proposed. :-)
> >
> >
> Sean was reading between the lines here. We are doing all this extra work
> to make sure OpenStack can be run together in a single environment, but
> it
> seems like more and more people are moving away from deploying with that
> model anyway. Moving to this model would require a little more then just
> installing everything in separate venvs.  We would need to make sure we
> don't cap oslo libraries etc. in order to prevent conflicts inside a
> single

Something I've noticed in this discussion: We should start talking about
"our" libraries, not just "Oslo" libraries. Oslo isn't the only project
managing libraries used by more than one other team any more. It never
really was, if you consider the clients, but we have PyCADF and various
middleware and other things now, too. We can base our policies on what
we've learned from Oslo, but we need to apply them to *all* libraries,
no matter which team manages them.

> service. And we would still need a story around what to do with stable
> branches, how do we make sure new libraries don't break stable branches
> --
> which in turn can break master via grenade and other jobs.

I'm comfortable using simple caps based on minor number increments for
stable branches. New libraries won't end up in the stable branches
unless they are a patch release. We can set up test jobs for stable
branches of libraries to run tempest just like we do against master, but
using all stable branch versions of the source files (AFAIK, we don't
have a job like that now, but I could be wrong).

I'm less confident that we have identified all of the issues with more
limited pins, so I'm reluctant to back that approach for now. That may
be an excess of caution on my part, though.

> 
> 
> 
> > Joe wanted requirements.txt to be the pinned requirements computed from
> > the list of all global requirements that work together. Pinning to a
> > single version works in our gate, but makes installing everything else
> > together *outside* of the gate harder because if the projects don't all
> > sync all requirements changes pretty much at the same time they won't be
> > compatible.
> >
> > Adam suggested leaving requirements.txt alone and creating a different
> > list of pinned requirements that is *only* used in our gate. That way we
> > still get the pinning for our gate, and the values are computed from the
> > requirements used in the projects but they aren't propagated back out to
> > the projects in a way that breaks their PyPI or distro packages.
> >
> > Another benefit of Adam's proposal is that we would only need to keep
> > the list of pins in the global requirements repository, so we would have
> > fewer tooling changes to make.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > >
> > >       -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
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

__________________________________________________________________________
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