Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Deprecation warnings in python-fuelclient-6.1.*
Kamil, thank you for the explanation. Indeed, the idea of keeping two separate entry points — one for the old functionality and another with the new cliff-based CLI makes more sense. In addition to the advantages you mentioned it will allow us to avoid all the mess with fall-backs and concentrate on making the new CLI as it should be from the beginning. I ask you guys to take a look at the chain of patches [1] that implement this approach. 1. https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/python-fuelclient+branch:master+topic:bp/re-thinking-fuel-client,n,z - romcheg > 4 бер. 2015 о 12:05 Kamil Sambor написав(ла): > > @romcheg > - the idea is to switch partially to new client so keeping one package with > two entry points: fuel and fuel_v2. It will be convenient for us to add new > commands to fuel_v2 only and switch slowly old commands to new version and > add warnings in old client commands. It will give users time to switch to new > client and it will be easy for us to migrate only old commands. Now when we > add new command we add to old client and then in future still need to migrate > it. SO keeping two entry points for fuel-client IMHO will be convenient for > developers and for users. > > Best regards, > Kamil Sambor > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: > I’d like to resolve some questions: > > @Przemysław: > - We can avoid that message by supplying --quiet. > - Changelog is currently managed automatically by PBR so as soon as there is > a release there will be a change log > - I think #2 can be done along with #3 > > @Kamil: > - The issue is that it’s not possible to release commands in this release > because it will immediately make the CLI incompatible.For 7.0 there is a plan > to get rid of the old CLI completely and replace it with Cliff-based one. I > agree that people may forget the deprecation warning before 7.1 ISO is > available but that is partially solvable by a change log. Besides, > python-fuelclient-7.0 will be available on PyPi much earlier than 7.0 ISO is > released. > - ^ is basically the reason why we cannot use #4, because there will be > nothing new to use, at least in the 6.1 ISO. Keeping both CLIs in the source > tree will create more mess and will be terribly hard to test. > > > - romcheg > > > 4 бер. 2015 о 10:11 Kamil Sambor написав(ла): > > > > Hi all, > > > > IMHO deprecation warning should be added only to commands that we recently > > changed (because users can switch to new interface when they see > > deprecation error) or eventually solution #2 sounds ok but is not ideal > > because people can forget about warning that they saw in previous release. > > Also we discuss 4th solution, simply we should inform users about > > deprecation of client and encourage users to use fuel_v2 client with new > > commands and parameters. > > > > Best regards, > > Kamil Sambor > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Przemyslaw Kaminski > > wrote: > > Maybe add a Changelog in the repo and maintain it? > > > > http://keepachangelog.com/ > > > > Option #2 is OK but it can cause pain when testing -- upon each fresh > > installation from ISO we would get that message and it might break some > > tests though that is fixable. Option #3 is OK too. #1 is worst and I > > wouldn't do it. > > > > Or maybe display that info when showing all the commands (typing 'fuel' > > or 'fuel -h')? We already have a deprecation warning there concerning > > client/config.yaml, it is not very disturbing and shouldn't break any > > currently used automation scripts. > > > > P. > > > > > > On 03/03/2015 03:52 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: > > > Hi folks! > > > > > > > > > According to the refactoring plan [1] we are going to release the 6.1 > > > version of python-fuelclient which is going to contain recent changes but > > > will keep backwards compatibility with what was before. However, the next > > > major release will bring users the fresh CLI that won’t be compatible > > > with the old one and the new, actually usable IRL API library that also > > > will be different. > > > > > > The issue this message is about is the fact that there is a strong need > > > to let both CLI and API users about those changes. At the moment I can > > > see 3 ways of resolving it: > > > > > > 1. Show deprecation warning for commands and parameters which are going > > > to be different. Log deprecation warnings for deprecated library methods. > > > The problem with this approach is that the structure of both CLI and the > > > library will be changed, so deprecation warning will be raised for mostly > > > every command for the whole release cycle. That does not look very user > > > friendly, because users will have to run all commands with --quiet for > > > the whole release cycle to mute deprecation warnings. > > > > > > 2. Show the list o the deprecated stuff and planned changes on the first > > > run. Then mute it. > >
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Deprecation warnings in python-fuelclient-6.1.*
@romcheg - the idea is to switch partially to new client so keeping one package with two entry points: fuel and fuel_v2. It will be convenient for us to add new commands to fuel_v2 only and switch slowly old commands to new version and add warnings in old client commands. It will give users time to switch to new client and it will be easy for us to migrate only old commands. Now when we add new command we add to old client and then in future still need to migrate it. SO keeping two entry points for fuel-client IMHO will be convenient for developers and for users. Best regards, Kamil Sambor On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: > I’d like to resolve some questions: > > @Przemysław: > - We can avoid that message by supplying --quiet. > - Changelog is currently managed automatically by PBR so as soon as there > is a release there will be a change log > - I think #2 can be done along with #3 > > @Kamil: > - The issue is that it’s not possible to release commands in this release > because it will immediately make the CLI incompatible.For 7.0 there is a > plan to get rid of the old CLI completely and replace it with Cliff-based > one. I agree that people may forget the deprecation warning before 7.1 ISO > is available but that is partially solvable by a change log. Besides, > python-fuelclient-7.0 will be available on PyPi much earlier than 7.0 ISO > is released. > - ^ is basically the reason why we cannot use #4, because there will be > nothing new to use, at least in the 6.1 ISO. Keeping both CLIs in the > source tree will create more mess and will be terribly hard to test. > > > - romcheg > > > 4 бер. 2015 о 10:11 Kamil Sambor написав(ла): > > > > Hi all, > > > > IMHO deprecation warning should be added only to commands that we > recently changed (because users can switch to new interface when they see > deprecation error) or eventually solution #2 sounds ok but is not ideal > because people can forget about warning that they saw in previous release. > Also we discuss 4th solution, simply we should inform users about > deprecation of client and encourage users to use fuel_v2 client with new > commands and parameters. > > > > Best regards, > > Kamil Sambor > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Przemyslaw Kaminski < > pkamin...@mirantis.com> wrote: > > Maybe add a Changelog in the repo and maintain it? > > > > http://keepachangelog.com/ > > > > Option #2 is OK but it can cause pain when testing -- upon each fresh > > installation from ISO we would get that message and it might break some > > tests though that is fixable. Option #3 is OK too. #1 is worst and I > > wouldn't do it. > > > > Or maybe display that info when showing all the commands (typing 'fuel' > > or 'fuel -h')? We already have a deprecation warning there concerning > > client/config.yaml, it is not very disturbing and shouldn't break any > > currently used automation scripts. > > > > P. > > > > > > On 03/03/2015 03:52 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: > > > Hi folks! > > > > > > > > > According to the refactoring plan [1] we are going to release the 6.1 > version of python-fuelclient which is going to contain recent changes but > will keep backwards compatibility with what was before. However, the next > major release will bring users the fresh CLI that won’t be compatible with > the old one and the new, actually usable IRL API library that also will be > different. > > > > > > The issue this message is about is the fact that there is a strong > need to let both CLI and API users about those changes. At the moment I can > see 3 ways of resolving it: > > > > > > 1. Show deprecation warning for commands and parameters which are > going to be different. Log deprecation warnings for deprecated library > methods. > > > The problem with this approach is that the structure of both CLI and > the library will be changed, so deprecation warning will be raised for > mostly every command for the whole release cycle. That does not look very > user friendly, because users will have to run all commands with --quiet for > the whole release cycle to mute deprecation warnings. > > > > > > 2. Show the list o the deprecated stuff and planned changes on the > first run. Then mute it. > > > The disadvantage of this approach if that there is a need of storing > the info about the first run to a file. However, it may be cleaned after > the upgrade. > > > > > > 3. The same as #2 but publish the warning online. > > > > > > I personally prefer #2, but I’d like to get more opinions on this > topic. > > > > > > > > > References: > > > > > > 1. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/re-thinking-fuel-client > > > > > > > > > - romcheg > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > 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/op
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Deprecation warnings in python-fuelclient-6.1.*
I’d like to resolve some questions: @Przemysław: - We can avoid that message by supplying --quiet. - Changelog is currently managed automatically by PBR so as soon as there is a release there will be a change log - I think #2 can be done along with #3 @Kamil: - The issue is that it’s not possible to release commands in this release because it will immediately make the CLI incompatible.For 7.0 there is a plan to get rid of the old CLI completely and replace it with Cliff-based one. I agree that people may forget the deprecation warning before 7.1 ISO is available but that is partially solvable by a change log. Besides, python-fuelclient-7.0 will be available on PyPi much earlier than 7.0 ISO is released. - ^ is basically the reason why we cannot use #4, because there will be nothing new to use, at least in the 6.1 ISO. Keeping both CLIs in the source tree will create more mess and will be terribly hard to test. - romcheg > 4 бер. 2015 о 10:11 Kamil Sambor написав(ла): > > Hi all, > > IMHO deprecation warning should be added only to commands that we recently > changed (because users can switch to new interface when they see deprecation > error) or eventually solution #2 sounds ok but is not ideal because people > can forget about warning that they saw in previous release. Also we discuss > 4th solution, simply we should inform users about deprecation of client and > encourage users to use fuel_v2 client with new commands and parameters. > > Best regards, > Kamil Sambor > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Przemyslaw Kaminski > wrote: > Maybe add a Changelog in the repo and maintain it? > > http://keepachangelog.com/ > > Option #2 is OK but it can cause pain when testing -- upon each fresh > installation from ISO we would get that message and it might break some > tests though that is fixable. Option #3 is OK too. #1 is worst and I > wouldn't do it. > > Or maybe display that info when showing all the commands (typing 'fuel' > or 'fuel -h')? We already have a deprecation warning there concerning > client/config.yaml, it is not very disturbing and shouldn't break any > currently used automation scripts. > > P. > > > On 03/03/2015 03:52 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: > > Hi folks! > > > > > > According to the refactoring plan [1] we are going to release the 6.1 > > version of python-fuelclient which is going to contain recent changes but > > will keep backwards compatibility with what was before. However, the next > > major release will bring users the fresh CLI that won’t be compatible with > > the old one and the new, actually usable IRL API library that also will be > > different. > > > > The issue this message is about is the fact that there is a strong need to > > let both CLI and API users about those changes. At the moment I can see 3 > > ways of resolving it: > > > > 1. Show deprecation warning for commands and parameters which are going to > > be different. Log deprecation warnings for deprecated library methods. > > The problem with this approach is that the structure of both CLI and the > > library will be changed, so deprecation warning will be raised for mostly > > every command for the whole release cycle. That does not look very user > > friendly, because users will have to run all commands with --quiet for the > > whole release cycle to mute deprecation warnings. > > > > 2. Show the list o the deprecated stuff and planned changes on the first > > run. Then mute it. > > The disadvantage of this approach if that there is a need of storing the > > info about the first run to a file. However, it may be cleaned after the > > upgrade. > > > > 3. The same as #2 but publish the warning online. > > > > I personally prefer #2, but I’d like to get more opinions on this topic. > > > > > > References: > > > > 1. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/re-thinking-fuel-client > > > > > > - romcheg > > > > > > > > __ > > 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 signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for us
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Deprecation warnings in python-fuelclient-6.1.*
Hi all, IMHO deprecation warning should be added only to commands that we recently changed (because users can switch to new interface when they see deprecation error) or eventually solution #2 sounds ok but is not ideal because people can forget about warning that they saw in previous release. Also we discuss 4th solution, simply we should inform users about deprecation of client and encourage users to use fuel_v2 client with new commands and parameters. Best regards, Kamil Sambor On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Przemyslaw Kaminski wrote: > Maybe add a Changelog in the repo and maintain it? > > http://keepachangelog.com/ > > Option #2 is OK but it can cause pain when testing -- upon each fresh > installation from ISO we would get that message and it might break some > tests though that is fixable. Option #3 is OK too. #1 is worst and I > wouldn't do it. > > Or maybe display that info when showing all the commands (typing 'fuel' > or 'fuel -h')? We already have a deprecation warning there concerning > client/config.yaml, it is not very disturbing and shouldn't break any > currently used automation scripts. > > P. > > > On 03/03/2015 03:52 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: > > Hi folks! > > > > > > According to the refactoring plan [1] we are going to release the 6.1 > version of python-fuelclient which is going to contain recent changes but > will keep backwards compatibility with what was before. However, the next > major release will bring users the fresh CLI that won’t be compatible with > the old one and the new, actually usable IRL API library that also will be > different. > > > > The issue this message is about is the fact that there is a strong need > to let both CLI and API users about those changes. At the moment I can see > 3 ways of resolving it: > > > > 1. Show deprecation warning for commands and parameters which are going > to be different. Log deprecation warnings for deprecated library methods. > > The problem with this approach is that the structure of both CLI and the > library will be changed, so deprecation warning will be raised for mostly > every command for the whole release cycle. That does not look very user > friendly, because users will have to run all commands with --quiet for the > whole release cycle to mute deprecation warnings. > > > > 2. Show the list o the deprecated stuff and planned changes on the first > run. Then mute it. > > The disadvantage of this approach if that there is a need of storing the > info about the first run to a file. However, it may be cleaned after the > upgrade. > > > > 3. The same as #2 but publish the warning online. > > > > I personally prefer #2, but I’d like to get more opinions on this topic. > > > > > > References: > > > > 1. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/re-thinking-fuel-client > > > > > > - romcheg > > > > > > > > > __ > > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Deprecation warnings in python-fuelclient-6.1.*
Maybe add a Changelog in the repo and maintain it? http://keepachangelog.com/ Option #2 is OK but it can cause pain when testing -- upon each fresh installation from ISO we would get that message and it might break some tests though that is fixable. Option #3 is OK too. #1 is worst and I wouldn't do it. Or maybe display that info when showing all the commands (typing 'fuel' or 'fuel -h')? We already have a deprecation warning there concerning client/config.yaml, it is not very disturbing and shouldn't break any currently used automation scripts. P. On 03/03/2015 03:52 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: > Hi folks! > > > According to the refactoring plan [1] we are going to release the 6.1 version > of python-fuelclient which is going to contain recent changes but will keep > backwards compatibility with what was before. However, the next major release > will bring users the fresh CLI that won’t be compatible with the old one and > the new, actually usable IRL API library that also will be different. > > The issue this message is about is the fact that there is a strong need to > let both CLI and API users about those changes. At the moment I can see 3 > ways of resolving it: > > 1. Show deprecation warning for commands and parameters which are going to be > different. Log deprecation warnings for deprecated library methods. > The problem with this approach is that the structure of both CLI and the > library will be changed, so deprecation warning will be raised for mostly > every command for the whole release cycle. That does not look very user > friendly, because users will have to run all commands with --quiet for the > whole release cycle to mute deprecation warnings. > > 2. Show the list o the deprecated stuff and planned changes on the first run. > Then mute it. > The disadvantage of this approach if that there is a need of storing the info > about the first run to a file. However, it may be cleaned after the upgrade. > > 3. The same as #2 but publish the warning online. > > I personally prefer #2, but I’d like to get more opinions on this topic. > > > References: > > 1. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/re-thinking-fuel-client > > > - romcheg > > > > __ > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Deprecation warnings in python-fuelclient-6.1.*
Hello, I would vote for 2nd, but i also think that we can generate same information, on merge for example, that will be printed during first run and place it directly in repository (maybe even README?). I guess this is what your 3rd approach is about? So, can we go with both? On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote: > Hi folks! > > > According to the refactoring plan [1] we are going to release the 6.1 > version of python-fuelclient which is going to contain recent changes but > will keep backwards compatibility with what was before. However, the next > major release will bring users the fresh CLI that won’t be compatible with > the old one and the new, actually usable IRL API library that also will be > different. > > The issue this message is about is the fact that there is a strong need to > let both CLI and API users about those changes. At the moment I can see 3 > ways of resolving it: > > 1. Show deprecation warning for commands and parameters which are going to > be different. Log deprecation warnings for deprecated library methods. > The problem with this approach is that the structure of both CLI and the > library will be changed, so deprecation warning will be raised for mostly > every command for the whole release cycle. That does not look very user > friendly, because users will have to run all commands with --quiet for the > whole release cycle to mute deprecation warnings. > > 2. Show the list o the deprecated stuff and planned changes on the first > run. Then mute it. > The disadvantage of this approach if that there is a need of storing the > info about the first run to a file. However, it may be cleaned after the > upgrade. > > 3. The same as #2 but publish the warning online. > > I personally prefer #2, but I’d like to get more opinions on this topic. > > > References: > > 1. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/re-thinking-fuel-client > > > - romcheg > > > __ > 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
