On 10/29/2015 07:29 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
On October 29, 2015 at 9:12:46 AM, Shyam (srang...@redhat.com) wrote:
Will code that NSR puts up in master be ready to ship when 3.8 is
branched?
Do we know when 3.8 will be branched?
This is an example not absolute, what I mean is when the next release is
made.
I ask the above, as I think we need a *process*, and not an open ended
"put it where you want option", for the following reasons, - Something
that ships experimental is not to be consumed in production, so till
the point an/any effort is ready it can be housed in experimental - It
is not about how much of infra code is impacted, or how much code
would change, it is about readiness of the functionality
I disagree. From an operational perspective, unavoidable impact (not
just on infrastructure but on any existing functionality) is *the* thing
we want to avoid. Experimental code that sits on disk, but isn’t even
loaded into memory without an explicit request to enable it, carries
little risk. Experimental code that’s loaded and executed every time
Gluster is run carries more risk, even if it’s just one line.
I assume this is about infra changes (as the first 2 points are for some
reason squashed in my reader). I think what you state is infra (or other
non-experimental) code impact due to changes by experimental/inprogress
code, should be dealt with clearly and carefully so as to not impact
regular functionality. In which case I *agree* and do not mean otherwise.
I think this sort of goes back to what Niels commented on my squashing a
.patch and proposed using #define EXPERIMENTAL in this thread (or such
methods).
- The intention is also to keep such WIP xlators segregated in master
- It is easy to control the "don't build/ship" directive for
everything under experimental, rather than make these decisions at a
per directory/xlator/module level
They’re likely to make those decisions at the finer granularity anyway.
Most people will probably only want to try out one experimental
translator at a time. Making them edit two makefiles (to enable
“experimental” and then a specific translator within it) instead of just
one doesn’t seem to get us very far. Either way they’ll have to edit
the specfile, and they’ll see a list of all the experimental translators
they could enable.
- It is a clear message for anyone picking up these pieces to deploy
and play with etc.
If having to edit makefiles and specfiles by hand isn’t enough, there
are other things we could do to send such a clear message. For example,
we could require a special configure flag or glusterd startup option to
enable management support for experimental features - not just whole
translators but options within existing translators as well.
Coming to DHT2, irrespective of reason (1) above, all other reasons
for which NSR can stay outside of experimental holds good for DHT2 as
well.
Perhaps. I think that’s pretty clearly true for the DHT2 translator
itself. For the associated posix changes it’s less clearly true, but
the modified version could go in storage/posix2 as easily as
experimental/posix or experimental/posix2.
Yes, posix2 is where the new posix code would land, hence the comment on
DHT2 being mostly similar in nature.
IMO the main reason to have an “experimental” directory is one not
mentioned yet - to put them in a separate RPM. This is not the same as
your “don’t build/ship” point above because they’ll get *built* anyway.
I think I should word my response more clearly, as "don't build/ship" is
taken literally.
The choice of experimental as a separate entity, makes some of the
choices presented below easier to implement/follow IMHO, which is what I
am getting at.
Another thing I am getting at is, we *should* define a clear way to do
such things, and not leave it open ended, which is where we seem to be
headed below.
They’ll just be separately installable - or not, for people who aren’t
interested in experimental code. Then we could combine that with the
special glusterd startup option mentioned above to make the wole process
of enabling or disabling experimental translators pretty seamless.
Install the RPM, tweak the option, and you can use experimental code.
Otherwise you can’t, and you get a nice clear error message if you try.
So, here's what I think we should do (right now - subject to change).
1. We should create an "experimental" directory, and update makefiles
accordingly.
I am going to point back to the patch around this here, as it contains a
README as well, which we can put these specifics into,
http://review.gluster.org/#/c/12321/2
We can further that, or create a new one, I am fine either way.
2. The main Gluster 4.0 translators - dht2+posix, nsr* - should go into
the experimental directory and the specfile should put those
translators into a new RPM.
3. All experimental functionality, whether in its own translator or
otherwise, should be controlled by an option which is off by
default.
Ah! I think this is something akin to the "#define EXPERIMENTAL"
suggestion and non-experimental code impact I guess, right?
4. Configuring an experimental feature should require a special
glusterd flag (plus installation of the experimental RPM).
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
