On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Ryan Brown <rybr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/08/2015 09:12 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > > On 08/04/15 08:59 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2015-04-07 10:43:30 +1200: > >>> On 7 April 2015 at 05:11, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Dolph Mathews > >>> <dolph.math...@gmail.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Boris Pavlovic > >>> <bo...@pavlovic.me> wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Jay, > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> Not far, IMHO. 100ms difference in startup time isn't something we > >>> >>>> should spend much time optimizing. There's bigger fish to fry. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I agree that priority of this task shouldn't be critical or even > >>> high, > >>> >>> and that there are other places that can be improved in OpenStack. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> In other hand this one is as well big source of UX issues that we > >>> have in > >>> >>> OpenStack.. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> For example: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> 1) You would like to run some command X times where X is pretty big > >>> >>> (admins likes to do this via bash loops). If you can execute all > >>> of them for > >>> >>> 1 and not 10 minutes you will get happier end user. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> +1 I'm fully in support of this effort. Shaving 100ms off the > >>> startup time > >>> >> of a frequently used library means that you'll save that 100ms > >>> over and > >>> >> over, adding up to a huge win. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Another data point on how slow our libraries/CLIs can be: > >>> > > >>> > $ time openstack -h > >>> > <snip> > >>> > real 0m2.491s > >>> > user 0m2.378s > >>> > sys 0m0.111s > >>> > >>> > >>> pbr should be snappy - taking 100ms to get the version is wrong. > >> > >> I have always considered pbr a packaging/installation time tool, and not > >> something that would be used at runtime. Why are we using pbr to get the > >> version of an installed package, instead of asking pkg_resources? > > > > Just wanted to +1 the above. > > > > I've also considered pbr a packaging/install tool. Furthermore, I > > believe having it as a runtime requirement makes packagers life more > > complicated because that means pbr will obviously need to be added as > > a runtime requirement for that package. > > > > RDO actually patches out calls to pbr to avoid the runtime requirement, > FWIW. > How does RDO handle --version arguments? > > -- > Ryan Brown / Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc. > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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