Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-10 Thread Clay Gerrard
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > > It might not make a difference to deployers / packagers who only deploy > one project from OpenStack, but they are in the minority - having a > known good minimum for requirements helps deployers who have multiple >

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-10 Thread Ian Cordasco
ck.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please > On 08/10/2016 04:51 AM, Erno Kuvaja wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > >> Not necessarily. Take for example Swift. It has lower requirements than > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-10 Thread Chris Friesen
On 08/10/2016 04:51 AM, Erno Kuvaja wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: Not necessarily. Take for example Swift. It has lower requirements than other projects in OpenStack. Yet, Swift is fully co-installable with all other OpenStack projects. They

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-10 Thread Matthew Thode
On 08/10/2016 07:30 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > To be clear, I think the requirements work Tony is doing has the potential to > make things worse for some subset of deployers/operators. > > -- > Ian Cordasco Any change we make has the potential to make things worse for some subset :P -- --

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-10 Thread Ian Cordasco
t;openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 08/09/2016 08:33 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> F

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-10 Thread Erno Kuvaja
(not for usage questions) >> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> Date: August 9, 2016 at 13:17:08 >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please >> >>> I'

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-10 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 08/09/2016 09:09 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > We've tried to be consistent in telling packagers to use the > versions listed in upper-constraints.txt unless there is an absolute > need to use something else. Those are the versions we test, and > therefore the versions we claim to support right

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-10 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 08/09/2016 08:54 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > But then packagers are going to have to do the work anyway, as it will > have in effect raised the minimum version of routes for Glance, and thus > need a new package. Which isn't a problem. It's perfectly ok to upload a new upstream release of a

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-10 Thread Thomas Goirand
t; To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please > >> I'd like to advocate for *not* raising minimum versions very often. Every >> time some OpenStack >> project

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-10 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 08/09/2016 08:25 PM, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09 2016, John Dickinson wrote: > >> I'd like to advocate for *not* raising minimum versions very often. Every >> time >> some OpenStack project raises minimum versions, this change is propagated to >> all projects, and that puts extra

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Tony Breeds
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 03:14:43PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > +1 for volunteers to step up. I'll do it and I have a *very* basic prototype done. It wont be in Newton though. Having said that if there is another volenteer I'm happy to work with them or free up time :) Yours Tony. PS:

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Davanum Srinivas
ot for usage questions) >> > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> > Date: August 9, 2016 at 11:21:47 >> > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesso

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Doug Hellmann
ckinson <m...@not.mn> > >> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >> Date: August 9, 2016 at 13:17:08 > >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.open

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Doug Hellmann
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > Date: August 9, 2016 at 11:21:47 > > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] H

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Matthew Thode
On 08/09/2016 01:37 PM, John Dickinson wrote: > In that case, they are still co-installable, because the nova minimum > satisfies both. The requirements project currently advocates the use of upper-requirements.txt as what is targeted for packagers. This is what's tested. -- -- Matthew Thode

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Hayes, Graham
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> Date: August 9, 2016 at 13:17:08 >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please >> >>> I'd like to advocate for *

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread John Dickinson
17:08 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please > >> I'd like to advocate for *not* raising minimum versions very often. Every >> time some OpenStack >> project

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Ian Cordasco
g> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please > I'd like to advocate for *not* raising minimum versions very often. Every > time some OpenStack > project raises minimum versions, this change is propagated to all projects, > and that > puts extra burden on a

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Davanum Srinivas
fyi, Just so you all know. It's upper-constraints.txt. Note the word "upper" :) -- Dims On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09 2016, John Dickinson wrote: > >> I'd like to advocate for *not* raising minimum versions very often. Every >> time

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Julien Danjou
On Tue, Aug 09 2016, John Dickinson wrote: > I'd like to advocate for *not* raising minimum versions very often. Every time > some OpenStack project raises minimum versions, this change is propagated to > all projects, and that puts extra burden on anyone who is maintaining packages > and

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread John Dickinson
ling List (not for usage questions) > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: August 9, 2016 at 11:21:47 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please > >> On 08/09/2016

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Ian Cordasco
g> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please > On 08/09/2016 11:25 AM, Matthew Thode wrote: > > On 08/09/2016 10:22 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Matthew Thode > >> Reply: prometheanf...@gentoo.org ,

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Sean Dague
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> Date: August 9, 2016 at 09:53:53 >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History le

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Matthew Thode
ev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: August 9, 2016 at 09:53:53 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please > >> One of the things on our todo list is to test the 'lower-c

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Ian Cordasco
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please > One of the things on our todo list is to test the 'lower-constraints' to > make sure they still work with the head of branch. That's not suffici

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Doug Hellmann
Excerpts from Tony Breeds's message of 2016-08-09 16:38:35 +1000: > Hi all, > I guess this is aimed at the long term requirements team members. > > The current policy for approving requirements[1] bumps contains the following > text: > > Changes to update the minimum version of a

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Matthew Thode
6 at 05:44:55 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please > >> On 08/09/2016 02:38 AM, Tony Breeds wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> I guess this is aimed at the long term requirements team

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Ian Cordasco
g> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please > On 08/09/2016 02:38 AM, Tony Breeds wrote: > > Hi all, > > I guess this is aimed at the long term requirements team members. > > > > The current policy for approving requirements[1] bumps contains the &g

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Sean Dague
On 08/09/2016 02:38 AM, Tony Breeds wrote: > Hi all, > I guess this is aimed at the long term requirements team members. > > The current policy for approving requirements[1] bumps contains the following > text: > > Changes to update the minimum version of a library developed by the >

[openstack-dev] [requirements] History lesson please

2016-08-09 Thread Tony Breeds
Hi all, I guess this is aimed at the long term requirements team members. The current policy for approving requirements[1] bumps contains the following text: Changes to update the minimum version of a library developed by the OpenStack community can be approved by one reviewer, as