Matt Fischer wrote:
Recently a mass of changes was proposed and some merged to move the
rabbit/kombu settings to avoid a Kilo deprecation. As far as I can tell
this will break rabbit connectivity for all modules still using Juno. I
did an experiment with Heat and it certainly can't talk to rabbit
anymore. (Hopefully you guys can just tell me I'm wrong here and
everything will still work)
So why did we do this? We seem to have traded a slightly annoying
deprecation warning for breaking every single module. It does not seem
like a good trade-off to me. At a minimum, I would have liked to wait
until we had forked Kilo off and we're working towards Liberty. Why?
Because there was simply no pressing reason to do this right now when
most everyone is still using Juno.
Since we as a community are pretty terrible at backports, this means
that I now need to switch to stable and sit on old and non-updated code
until I can upgrade to Kilo, which is likely a minimum of 45 days away
for many components for us.
This has implications for my team beyond breaking everything:
* It means that we need to stop importing puppet code changes with our
git-upstream jobs. This makes the process of moving back to master when
we finally can quite painful. I had to do it for Icehouse and I don't
relish doing it again.
* It means that any fixes we want will require a two step process to get
into backports. This delays things obviously.
* It means that the number of contributions you will get from us will
probably fall, not being on master makes it way more likely for us just
to hold patches.
* It means that we will have to write a shim layer in our module to deal
with these settings and whatever else gets broken like this.
So I'd like to discuss the philosophy of why this was done. I'd also
again like to put in my vote for master supporting current-1 for at
least some period of time. There's a reason that the upstream code that
we configure just did this with a deprecation rather than a "if you set
it like this you are broken". We should do the same.
For now I've -1'd all the outstanding reviews until we can have a
discussion about it. I know one was merged despite my -1, but I didn't
think a -2 was warranted.
Matt,
I am certainly sympathetic to your situation - having the world change
beneath your feet is never a good place to be. =]
It does seem, however, that there is a disconnect between your
expectations (as I understand them) of what the 'master' branch
represents, and what it has traditionally represented - the 'bleeding edge'
Master is volatile - it is expected to be volatile. As the code
progresses between releases it is expected that things can (and will) break.
The solution, in my mind, is not to redefine what it means to be master,
but rather to be more aggressive about back-porting changes to stable
branches.
I am very much in favor of discussions that include your proposed
solution above (i.e. 'current-1' support), as long as it is identified
as a transitional step; I do pretty strongly believe that the right
long-term model is to treat master as the 'bleeding edge' and to only
pin yourself to stable releases.
Regards,
Richard Raseley
SysOps Engineer
Puppet Labs
__________________________________________________________________________
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
