There may be a similar problem managing dependencies on libraries that live outside of either tree. I assume you already decided how to handle that. Are you doing the same thing, and adding the requirements to neutron’s lists?
On Dec 15, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Doug Wiegley <do...@a10networks.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Ihar and I discussed this on IRC, and are going forward with option 2 > unless someone has a big problem with it. > > Thanks, > Doug > > > On 12/15/14, 8:22 AM, "Doug Wiegley" <do...@a10networks.com> wrote: > >> Hi Ihar, >> >> I’m actually in favor of option 2, but it implies a few things about your >> time, and I wanted to chat with you before presuming. >> >> Maintenance can not involve breaking changes. At this point, the co-gate >> will block it. Also, oslo graduation changes will have to be made in the >> services repos first, and then Neutron. >> >> Thanks, >> doug >> >> >> On 12/15/14, 6:15 AM, "Ihar Hrachyshka" <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA512 >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> the question arose recently in one of reviews for neutron-*aas repos >>> to remove all oslo-incubator code from those repos since it's >>> duplicated in neutron main repo. (You can find the link to the review >>> at the end of the email.) >>> >>> Brief hostory: neutron repo was recently split into 4 pieces (main, >>> neutron-fwaas, neutron-lbaas, and neutron-vpnaas). The split resulted >>> in each repository keeping their own copy of >>> neutron/openstack/common/... tree (currently unused in all >>> neutron-*aas repos that are still bound to modules from main repo). >>> >>> As a oslo liaison for the project, I wonder what's the best way to >>> manage oslo-incubator files. We have several options: >>> >>> 1. just kill all the neutron/openstack/common/ trees from neutron-*aas >>> repositories and continue using modules from main repo. >>> >>> 2. kill all duplicate modules from neutron-*aas repos and leave only >>> those that are used in those repos but not in main repo. >>> >>> 3. fully duplicate all those modules in each of four repos that use them. >>> >>> I think option 1. is a straw man, since we should be able to introduce >>> new oslo-incubator modules into neutron-*aas repos even if they are >>> not used in main repo. >>> >>> Option 2. is good when it comes to synching non-breaking bug fixes (or >>> security fixes) from oslo-incubator, in that it will require only one >>> sync patch instead of e.g. four. At the same time there may be >>> potential issues when synchronizing updates from oslo-incubator that >>> would break API and hence require changes to each of the modules that >>> use it. Since we don't support atomic merges for multiple projects in >>> gate, we will need to be cautious about those updates, and we will >>> still need to leave neutron-*aas repos broken for some time (though >>> the time may be mitigated with care). >>> >>> Option 3. is vice versa - in theory, you get total decoupling, meaning >>> no oslo-incubator updates in main repo are expected to break >>> neutron-*aas repos, but bug fixing becomes a huge PITA. >>> >>> I would vote for option 2., for two reasons: >>> - - most oslo-incubator syncs are non-breaking, and we may effectively >>> apply care to updates that may result in potential breakage (f.e. >>> being able to trigger an integrated run for each of neutron-*aas repos >>> with the main sync patch, if there are any concerns). >>> - - it will make oslo liaison life a lot easier. OK, I'm probably too >>> selfish on that. ;) >>> - - it will make stable maintainers life a lot easier. The main reason >>> why stable maintainers and distributions like recent oslo graduation >>> movement is that we don't need to track each bug fix we need in every >>> project, and waste lots of cycles on it. Being able to fix a bug in >>> one place only is *highly* anticipated. [OK, I'm quite selfish on that >>> one too.] >>> - - it's a delusion that there will be no neutron-main syncs that will >>> break neutron-*aas repos ever. There can still be problems due to >>> incompatibility between neutron main and neutron-*aas code resulted >>> EXACTLY because multiple parts of the same process use different >>> versions of the same module. >>> >>> That said, Doug Wiegley (lbaas core) seems to be in favour of option >>> 3. due to lower coupling that is achieved in that way. I know that >>> lbaas team had a bad experience due to tight coupling to neutron >>> project in the past, so I appreciate their concerns. >>> >>> All in all, we should come up with some standard solution for both >>> advanced services that are already split out, *and* upcoming vendor >>> plugin shrinking initiative. >>> >>> The initial discussion is captured at: >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/141427/ >>> >>> Thanks, >>> /Ihar >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) >>> >>> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUju0NAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57n5YH/jA4l5DsLgRpw9gYsoSWVGvh >>> apmJ4UlnAKhxzc787XImz1VA+ztSyIwAUdEdcfq3gkinP58q7o48oIXOGjFXaBNq >>> 6qBePC1hflEqZ85Hm4/i5z51qutjW0dyi4y4C6FHgM5NsEkhbh0QIa/u8Hr4F1q6 >>> tkr0kDbCbDkiZ8IX1l74VGWQ3QvCNeJkANUg79BqGq+qIVP3BeOHyWqRmpLZFQ6E >>> QiUwhiYv5l4HekCEQN8PWisJoqnhbTNjvLBnLD82IitLd5vXnsXfSkxKhv9XeOg/ >>> czLUCyr/nJg4aw8Qm0DTjnZxS+BBe5De0Ke4zm2AGePgFYcai8YQPtuOfSJDbXk= >>> =D6Gn >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev