On 02/24/2015 09:37 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Sean Dague wrote:

That also provides a very concrete answer to "will people show up".
Because if they do, and we get this horizontal refactoring happening,
then we get to the point of being able to change release cadences
faster. If they don't, we remain with the existing system. Vs changing
the system and hoping someone is going to run in and backfill the breaks.

Isn't this the way of the world? People only put halon in the
machine room after the fire.

I agree that "people showing up" is a real concern, but I also think
that we shy away too much from the productive energy of stuff
breaking. It's the breakage that shows where stuff isn't good

[Flavio said]:
To this I'd also add that bug fixing is way easier when you have
aligned releases for projects that are expected to be deployed
together. It's easier to know what the impact of a change/bug is
throughout the infrastructure.

Can't this be interpreted as an excuse for making software which
does not have a low surface area and a good API?

(Note I'm taking a relatively unrealistic position for sake of
I'm not so sure about that. IMO, much of this goes back to the question of whether OpenStack services are APIs or implementations. This was debated with much heat at the Diablo summit (Hi Jay). I frequently have conversations where there is an issue about release X vs Y when it is really about api versions. Even if we say that we are about implementations as well as apis, we can start to organize our processes and code as if we were just apis. If each service had a well-defined, versioned, discoverable, well-tested api, then projects could follow their own release schedule, relying on distros or integrators to put the pieces together and verify the quality of the whole stack to the users. Such entities could still collaborate on that task, and still identify longer release cycles, using "stable branches". The upstream project could still test the latest released versions together. Some of these steps are now being taken to resolve gate issues and horizontal resource issues. Doing this would vastly increase agility but with some costs:

1. The upstream project would likely have to give up on the worthy goal of providing an actual deployable stack that could be used as an alternative to AWS, etc. That saddens me, but for various reasons, including that we do no scale/performance testing on the upstream code, we are not achieving that goal anyway. The big tent proposals are also a move away from that goal.

2. We would have to give up on incompatible api changes. But with the replacement of nova v3 with microversions we are already doing that. Massive adoption with release agility is simply incompatible with allowing incompatible api changes.

Most of this is just echoing what Jay said. I think this is the way any SOA would be designed. If we did this, and projects released frequently, would there be a reason for any one to be chasing master?


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

Reply via email to