Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] the driver composition and breaking changes to the supported interfaces

2017-06-16 Thread Dmitry Tantsur 

Thanks!

I think this is what we seem to agree so far: keep the old interface and 
deprecate it usage.


On 06/13/2017 01:39 PM, tie...@vn.fujitsu.com wrote:

Hi,

Dmitry: Thanks for bringing this issue into discussion.

For the iRMC patch, I would vote for the first option as it is commonly used. 
But overall, I think it's great if ironic can provide a mechanism like the 
second one. But as you said, that is technically challenging.

Regards
TienDC

-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Tantsur [mailto:dtant...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 20:44
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 

Subject: [openstack-dev] [ironic] the driver composition and breaking changes 
to the supported interfaces

Hi folks!

I want to raise something we haven't apparently thought about when working on 
the driver composition reform.

For example, an iRMC patch [0] replaces 'pxe' boot with 'irmc-pxe'. This is the 
correct thing to do in this case. They're extending the PXE boot, and need a 
new class and a new entrypoint. We can expect more changes like this coming.

However, this change is breaking for users. Imagine a node explicitly created 
with:

   openstack baremetal node create --driver irmc --boot-interface pxe

On upgrade to Pike, such nodes will break and will require manual intervention 
to get it working again:

   openstack baremetal node set  --boot-interface irmc-pxe

What can we do about it? I see the following possibilities:

1. Keep "pxe" interface supported and issue a deprecation. This is relatively 
easy, but I'm not sure if it's always possible to keep the old interface working.

2. Change the driver composition reform to somehow allow the same names for different 
interfaces. e.g. "pxe" would point to PXEBoot for IPMI, but to IRMCPXEBoot for 
iRMC. This is technically challenging.

3. Only do a release note, and allow the breaking change to happen.

WDYT?

[0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/416403

__
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] [ironic] the driver composition and breaking changes to the supported interfaces

2017-06-13 Thread tie...@vn.fujitsu.com 
Hi,

Dmitry: Thanks for bringing this issue into discussion.

For the iRMC patch, I would vote for the first option as it is commonly used. 
But overall, I think it's great if ironic can provide a mechanism like the 
second one. But as you said, that is technically challenging.

Regards
TienDC

-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Tantsur [mailto:dtant...@redhat.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 20:44
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 

Subject: [openstack-dev] [ironic] the driver composition and breaking changes 
to the supported interfaces

Hi folks!

I want to raise something we haven't apparently thought about when working on 
the driver composition reform.

For example, an iRMC patch [0] replaces 'pxe' boot with 'irmc-pxe'. This is the 
correct thing to do in this case. They're extending the PXE boot, and need a 
new class and a new entrypoint. We can expect more changes like this coming.

However, this change is breaking for users. Imagine a node explicitly created 
with:

  openstack baremetal node create --driver irmc --boot-interface pxe

On upgrade to Pike, such nodes will break and will require manual intervention 
to get it working again:

  openstack baremetal node set  --boot-interface irmc-pxe

What can we do about it? I see the following possibilities:

1. Keep "pxe" interface supported and issue a deprecation. This is relatively 
easy, but I'm not sure if it's always possible to keep the old interface 
working.

2. Change the driver composition reform to somehow allow the same names for 
different interfaces. e.g. "pxe" would point to PXEBoot for IPMI, but to 
IRMCPXEBoot for iRMC. This is technically challenging.

3. Only do a release note, and allow the breaking change to happen.

WDYT?

[0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/416403

__
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-dev] [ironic] the driver composition and breaking changes to the supported interfaces

2017-06-12 Thread Dmitry Tantsur 

Hi folks!

I want to raise something we haven't apparently thought about when working on 
the driver composition reform.


For example, an iRMC patch [0] replaces 'pxe' boot with 'irmc-pxe'. This is the 
correct thing to do in this case. They're extending the PXE boot, and need a new 
class and a new entrypoint. We can expect more changes like this coming.


However, this change is breaking for users. Imagine a node explicitly created 
with:

 openstack baremetal node create --driver irmc --boot-interface pxe

On upgrade to Pike, such nodes will break and will require manual intervention 
to get it working again:


 openstack baremetal node set  --boot-interface irmc-pxe

What can we do about it? I see the following possibilities:

1. Keep "pxe" interface supported and issue a deprecation. This is relatively 
easy, but I'm not sure if it's always possible to keep the old interface working.


2. Change the driver composition reform to somehow allow the same names for 
different interfaces. e.g. "pxe" would point to PXEBoot for IPMI, but to 
IRMCPXEBoot for iRMC. This is technically challenging.


3. Only do a release note, and allow the breaking change to happen.

WDYT?

[0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/416403

__
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