Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Doc dependencies

2015-10-02 Thread Sean Dague 
On 10/02/2015 10:53 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
> The Pillow-breaking-gate issue was related to having doc dependencies
> listed in the test-requirements.txt; however, those dependencies are not
> needed for testing, except for doc testing and generation.  What do
> people think about creating a new "doc-requirements.txt" file that would
> contain only the doc dependencies?  The appropriate doc environments in
> tox.ini would then need to be extended to pull in that file, and of
> course the global requirements tooling would have to be enhanced to
> recognize the new file as well.

It would still have broken the gate, we test if docs build on every commit.

I think the bigger question is if we believe that a c compiler should be
required to build docs on a python project. Which seems really weird to
me. And a substantially higher barrier to entry than I think we want for
docs contributions.

There was only 1 use of this in all of Nova, and I think we're better
off removing it and coming up with other ways of addressing it.

-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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Doc dependencies

2015-10-02 Thread Kevin L. Mitchell 
On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 11:00 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 10/02/2015 10:53 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
> > The Pillow-breaking-gate issue was related to having doc dependencies
> > listed in the test-requirements.txt; however, those dependencies are not
> > needed for testing, except for doc testing and generation.  What do
> > people think about creating a new "doc-requirements.txt" file that would
> > contain only the doc dependencies?  The appropriate doc environments in
> > tox.ini would then need to be extended to pull in that file, and of
> > course the global requirements tooling would have to be enhanced to
> > recognize the new file as well.
> 
> It would still have broken the gate, we test if docs build on every commit.

Yes—this is why I characterized it as "related"—but the test failure
would have at least been isolated to the docs test.  That would have
allowed reviews to get useful test results, instead of having a
dependency installation issue.  It's ultimately just a thought; it feels
wrong for us to install dependencies not directly related to testing,
even if we also test the doc generation.

> I think the bigger question is if we believe that a c compiler should be
> required to build docs on a python project. Which seems really weird to
> me. And a substantially higher barrier to entry than I think we want for
> docs contributions.

Well, Pillow isn't the only transitive dependency that's going to
require a C compiler; there are many other dependencies we have that are
actually extensions.

> There was only 1 use of this in all of Nova, and I think we're better
> off removing it and coming up with other ways of addressing it.

Perhaps, but having diagrams in the documentation is still going to be
incredibly useful, and Nova isn't the only component we have to consider
(which is why I removed the [nova] tag from the subject line).  That
said, I have no objection if we find or create a tool that generates
images without depending on Pillow, but…*shrug*
-- 
Kevin L. Mitchell 
Rackspace


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Doc dependencies

2015-10-02 Thread Jeremy Stanley 
On 2015-10-02 10:20:49 -0500 (-0500), Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
[...]
> it feels wrong for us to install dependencies not directly related
> to testing, even if we also test the doc generation.
[...]

It's a bit of a mischaracterization to suggest that there is some
specific set of "dependencies [...] directly related to testing" in
a more tightly-coupled fashion than those required for testing the
included documentation builds. If you wanted to start splitting
these up, really just about every environment defined in tox could
conceivably have its own specific set of requirements which omits
those only used by the other environments (for example, why install
modules that won't be imported during a pep8 run? why install static
analysis tools when running unit tests?).

At least for now we can sort of draw a fuzzy line around things not
commonly used at run-time and call them testing-related.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
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-dev] [all] Doc dependencies (was: Re: [infra][nova][all] Pillow breaking gate?)

2015-10-02 Thread Kevin L. Mitchell 
The Pillow-breaking-gate issue was related to having doc dependencies
listed in the test-requirements.txt; however, those dependencies are not
needed for testing, except for doc testing and generation.  What do
people think about creating a new "doc-requirements.txt" file that would
contain only the doc dependencies?  The appropriate doc environments in
tox.ini would then need to be extended to pull in that file, and of
course the global requirements tooling would have to be enhanced to
recognize the new file as well.
-- 
Kevin L. Mitchell 
Rackspace


__
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