Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
- Original Message - > From: "Bob Ball" > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List" , > "Mark McLoughlin" > Cc: "Dan Prince (dpri...@redhat.com)" > Sent: Friday, September 6, 2013 10:21:45 AM > Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging > > Puppet is failing to build the packages - which is probably understandable > given it's a refactor. > > I'm not sure if this is something that points to a problem with the refactor > or the packaging itself - hopefully Dan can review the logs, or if others > want to see more of the details look at the logs at > https://review.openstack.org/39929. > > I don't see any point in triggering another Smokestack run as it's likely to > fail again until the packaging issue has been resolved by Dan's team. FTR. SmokeStack should have oslo-messaging packages available for use as of today. Once I kick the tires on it a bit I'll go and re-run the existing Nova Oslo messaging branches so we have a better idea of how this works w/ Qpid, etc. So whether we wait till IceHouse or not we'll be ready. Dan > > Bob > > From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:dava...@gmail.com] > Sent: 05 September 2013 17:04 > To: Mark McLoughlin; OpenStack Development Mailing List > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging > > Thanks Mark. Looks like we need to get someone to manually trigger Smokestack > to run against this review at least once since i don't see any +1's from > Smokestack for some reason. > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Mark McLoughlin > mailto:mar...@redhat.com>> wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 10:43 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > Mark, > > > > Has this changeset get through a full tempest with QPid enabled? > No, I've only done local testing with the qpid transport to date. > > I think Smokestack is the only CI tool actively testing the qpid driver. > I ran out of time adding oslo.messaging to Smokestack before heading off > on vacation, but I expect I'll get to it next week. > > Cheers, > Mark. > > > > > > thanks, > > dims > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Mark McLoughlin > > mailto:mar...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > > > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova to > > > oslo.messaging: > > > > > > https://review.openstack.org/39929 > > > > > > While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, it > > > would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort all > > > through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator into a > > > library. > > > > > > In terms of risk of regression, there is certainly some risk but that > > > risk > > > is mitigated by the fact that the core code of each of the transport > > > drivers has been modified minimally. The idea was to delay re-factoring > > > these drivers until we were sure that we hadn't caused any regressions in > > > Nova. The code has been happily passing the devstack/tempest based > > > integration tests for 10 days now. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mark. > > > > > > ___ > > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com > ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
Sounds like a plan, Dan. Thanks. On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Dan Prince wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Bob Ball" > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List" < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>, "Mark McLoughlin" > > Cc: "Dan Prince (dpri...@redhat.com)" > > Sent: Friday, September 6, 2013 10:21:45 AM > > Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging > > > > Puppet is failing to build the packages - which is probably > understandable > > given it's a refactor. > > > > I'm not sure if this is something that points to a problem with the > refactor > > or the packaging itself - hopefully Dan can review the logs, or if others > > want to see more of the details look at the logs at > > https://review.openstack.org/39929. > > > > I don't see any point in triggering another Smokestack run as it's > likely to > > fail again until the packaging issue has been resolved by Dan's team. > > FTR. SmokeStack should have oslo-messaging packages available for use as > of today. Once I kick the tires on it a bit I'll go and re-run the existing > Nova Oslo messaging branches so we have a better idea of how this works w/ > Qpid, etc. > > So whether we wait till IceHouse or not we'll be ready. > > Dan > > > > > Bob > > > > From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:dava...@gmail.com] > > Sent: 05 September 2013 17:04 > > To: Mark McLoughlin; OpenStack Development Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging > > > > Thanks Mark. Looks like we need to get someone to manually trigger > Smokestack > > to run against this review at least once since i don't see any +1's from > > Smokestack for some reason. > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Mark McLoughlin > > mailto:mar...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 10:43 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > > Mark, > > > > > > Has this changeset get through a full tempest with QPid enabled? > > No, I've only done local testing with the qpid transport to date. > > > > I think Smokestack is the only CI tool actively testing the qpid driver. > > I ran out of time adding oslo.messaging to Smokestack before heading off > > on vacation, but I expect I'll get to it next week. > > > > Cheers, > > Mark. > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > dims > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Mark McLoughlin > > > mailto:mar...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > > > > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port > Nova to > > > > oslo.messaging: > > > > > > > > https://review.openstack.org/39929 > > > > > > > > While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible > benefit, it > > > > would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort > all > > > > through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator > into a > > > > library. > > > > > > > > In terms of risk of regression, there is certainly some risk but that > > > > risk > > > > is mitigated by the fact that the core code of each of the transport > > > > drivers has been modified minimally. The idea was to delay > re-factoring > > > > these drivers until we were sure that we hadn't caused any > regressions in > > > > Nova. The code has been happily passing the devstack/tempest based > > > > integration tests for 10 days now. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mark. > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > -- > > Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com > > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
+1 to NACK on the FFE. Let's do this first thing in Icehouse :) On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 09:49:18AM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > > On 09/06/2013 08:30 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 10:59 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > >> Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > >>> I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > > >>> admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port > Nova > > >>> to oslo.messaging: > > >>> > > >>> https://review.openstack.org/39929 > > >> > > >> I'm generally adverse to granting feature freeze exceptions to code > > >> refactoring: the user benefit of having them in the release is > > >> inexistent, while they introduce some risk by changing deep code > > >> relatively late in the cycle. That's why I prefer those to be targeted > > >> to earlier development milestones, this avoids having to make hard > calls > > >> once all the work is done and almost completed. > > > > > > Yes, absolutely understood. > > > > > > To be clear - while I think there's a strong case for an exception > here, > > > I am very close to this, so I would be cool with a denial of this > > > request. > > > > > >> That said, if the risk is under control and the patch is ready to > merge, > > >> I'm fine with this as long as there is some other benefits in having > it > > >> *in* the release rather than landed first thing in icehouse. > > >> > > >> Would having it *in* the release facilitate stable/havana branch > > >> maintenance, for example ? > > >> > > >>> While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible > benefit, it > > >>> would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort > all > > >>> through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator > into a > > >>> library. > > >> > > >> Could you expand on why this would be a lot more helpful to have it in > > >> the release rather than early in icehouse ? > > >> > > >> And to have all cards on the table, how much sense would the > alternative > > >> make (i.e. not land this final patch while a lot of this feature code > > >> has already been merged) ? > > > > > > If the patch was merged now, while it's not a user-visible feature > > > per-se, I think oslo.messaging is something we would celebrate in the > > > Havana release e.g. > > > > > > While OpenStack continues to add new projects and developers while, > > > in parallel, aggressively takes steps to enable the project to scale. > > > The oslo.messaging library added in the Havana release is an example > > > of where code which was previously copied and pasted between projects > > > and has now been re-factored out into a shared library with a clean > > > API. This library will provide a structured way for OpenStack > > > projects to collaborate on adopting new messaging patterns and > > > features without the disruption of incompatible API changes nor the > > > pain of keeping copied and pasted code in sync. > > > > > > Obviously, as Oslo PTL, I think this is an important theme that we > > > should continue to emphasise and build momentum around. The messaging > > > library is by far the most significant example so far of how this > > > process of creating libraries can be effective. Nova using the library > > > in the Havana release would (IMHO) be the signal that this process is > > > working and hopefully inspire others to take a similar approach with > > > other chunks of common code. > > > > > > Conversely, if we delayed merging this code until Icehouse, I think it > > > would leave somewhat of a question mark hanging over oslo.messaging and > > > Oslo going into the summit: > > > > > > Is this oslo.messaging thing for real? Or will it be abandoned and we > > > need to continue with the oslo-incubator RPC code? Why is it taking > so > > > long to create these libraries? This sucks! > > I think you're under-selling yourself here. As an interested 3rd party to > oslo development, that certainly isn't my impression of what has happened > with oslo.messaging development until this point. > > I think you have a pretty credible story to tell about the work done to > get oslo.messaging to where it is now for Havana, even without it being > used by Nova & don't think anyone could credibly claim it is dead or > moving too slowly. Reusable library design is hard to get right & takes > time if you want to support a stable API long term. > > I don't know about your non-Nova plans, but doing the final conversion in > Icehouse timeframe may give you time in which to convert other openstack > projects to oslo.messaging at the same time, so we would have everything > aligned at once. > > > > That's all very meta, I know. But I do really believe making progress > > > with Oslo libraries is important for OpenStack long-term. While it's > not > > > a user-visible benefit per-se, I do think this work benefits the > project > > > broadly and is also s
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
Puppet is failing to build the packages - which is probably understandable given it's a refactor. I'm not sure if this is something that points to a problem with the refactor or the packaging itself - hopefully Dan can review the logs, or if others want to see more of the details look at the logs at https://review.openstack.org/39929. I don't see any point in triggering another Smokestack run as it's likely to fail again until the packaging issue has been resolved by Dan's team. Bob From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:dava...@gmail.com] Sent: 05 September 2013 17:04 To: Mark McLoughlin; OpenStack Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging Thanks Mark. Looks like we need to get someone to manually trigger Smokestack to run against this review at least once since i don't see any +1's from Smokestack for some reason. On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Mark McLoughlin mailto:mar...@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 10:43 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Mark, > > Has this changeset get through a full tempest with QPid enabled? No, I've only done local testing with the qpid transport to date. I think Smokestack is the only CI tool actively testing the qpid driver. I ran out of time adding oslo.messaging to Smokestack before heading off on vacation, but I expect I'll get to it next week. Cheers, Mark. > > thanks, > dims > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Mark McLoughlin > mailto:mar...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova to > > oslo.messaging: > > > > https://review.openstack.org/39929 > > > > While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, it > > would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort all > > through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator into a > > library. > > > > In terms of risk of regression, there is certainly some risk but that risk > > is mitigated by the fact that the core code of each of the transport > > drivers has been modified minimally. The idea was to delay re-factoring > > these drivers until we were sure that we hadn't caused any regressions in > > Nova. The code has been happily passing the devstack/tempest based > > integration tests for 10 days now. > > > > Thanks, > > Mark. > > > > ___ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
> I propose a NACK on the FFE, and instead going with the above plan. I agree, especially with Thierry's concerns. This is a lot of deep change for little user-visible benefit (user-visible release notes notwithstanding!) --Dan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 09:49:18AM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 09/06/2013 08:30 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 10:59 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> Mark McLoughlin wrote: > >>> I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > >>> admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova > >>> to oslo.messaging: > >>> > >>> https://review.openstack.org/39929 > >> > >> I'm generally adverse to granting feature freeze exceptions to code > >> refactoring: the user benefit of having them in the release is > >> inexistent, while they introduce some risk by changing deep code > >> relatively late in the cycle. That's why I prefer those to be targeted > >> to earlier development milestones, this avoids having to make hard calls > >> once all the work is done and almost completed. > > > > Yes, absolutely understood. > > > > To be clear - while I think there's a strong case for an exception here, > > I am very close to this, so I would be cool with a denial of this > > request. > > > >> That said, if the risk is under control and the patch is ready to merge, > >> I'm fine with this as long as there is some other benefits in having it > >> *in* the release rather than landed first thing in icehouse. > >> > >> Would having it *in* the release facilitate stable/havana branch > >> maintenance, for example ? > >> > >>> While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, it > >>> would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort all > >>> through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator into a > >>> library. > >> > >> Could you expand on why this would be a lot more helpful to have it in > >> the release rather than early in icehouse ? > >> > >> And to have all cards on the table, how much sense would the alternative > >> make (i.e. not land this final patch while a lot of this feature code > >> has already been merged) ? > > > > If the patch was merged now, while it's not a user-visible feature > > per-se, I think oslo.messaging is something we would celebrate in the > > Havana release e.g. > > > > While OpenStack continues to add new projects and developers while, > > in parallel, aggressively takes steps to enable the project to scale. > > The oslo.messaging library added in the Havana release is an example > > of where code which was previously copied and pasted between projects > > and has now been re-factored out into a shared library with a clean > > API. This library will provide a structured way for OpenStack > > projects to collaborate on adopting new messaging patterns and > > features without the disruption of incompatible API changes nor the > > pain of keeping copied and pasted code in sync. > > > > Obviously, as Oslo PTL, I think this is an important theme that we > > should continue to emphasise and build momentum around. The messaging > > library is by far the most significant example so far of how this > > process of creating libraries can be effective. Nova using the library > > in the Havana release would (IMHO) be the signal that this process is > > working and hopefully inspire others to take a similar approach with > > other chunks of common code. > > > > Conversely, if we delayed merging this code until Icehouse, I think it > > would leave somewhat of a question mark hanging over oslo.messaging and > > Oslo going into the summit: > > > > Is this oslo.messaging thing for real? Or will it be abandoned and we > > need to continue with the oslo-incubator RPC code? Why is it taking so > > long to create these libraries? This sucks! I think you're under-selling yourself here. As an interested 3rd party to oslo development, that certainly isn't my impression of what has happened with oslo.messaging development until this point. I think you have a pretty credible story to tell about the work done to get oslo.messaging to where it is now for Havana, even without it being used by Nova & don't think anyone could credibly claim it is dead or moving too slowly. Reusable library design is hard to get right & takes time if you want to support a stable API long term. I don't know about your non-Nova plans, but doing the final conversion in Icehouse timeframe may give you time in which to convert other openstack projects to oslo.messaging at the same time, so we would have everything aligned at once. > > That's all very meta, I know. But I do really believe making progress > > with Oslo libraries is important for OpenStack long-term. While it's not > > a user-visible benefit per-se, I do think this work benefits the project > > broadly and is also something worth marketing. > > > > We measure our progress in terms of what we achieved in each release > > cycle. I think we've made great progress on oslo.messaging in Havana, > > but unless a project uses it in the release it won't be something we > > really celebrate until Icehouse. I can understand where
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
On 09/06/2013 08:30 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 10:59 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Mark McLoughlin wrote: >>> I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and >>> admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova >>> to oslo.messaging: >>> >>> https://review.openstack.org/39929 >> >> I'm generally adverse to granting feature freeze exceptions to code >> refactoring: the user benefit of having them in the release is >> inexistent, while they introduce some risk by changing deep code >> relatively late in the cycle. That's why I prefer those to be targeted >> to earlier development milestones, this avoids having to make hard calls >> once all the work is done and almost completed. > > Yes, absolutely understood. > > To be clear - while I think there's a strong case for an exception here, > I am very close to this, so I would be cool with a denial of this > request. > >> That said, if the risk is under control and the patch is ready to merge, >> I'm fine with this as long as there is some other benefits in having it >> *in* the release rather than landed first thing in icehouse. >> >> Would having it *in* the release facilitate stable/havana branch >> maintenance, for example ? >> >>> While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, it >>> would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort all >>> through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator into a >>> library. >> >> Could you expand on why this would be a lot more helpful to have it in >> the release rather than early in icehouse ? >> >> And to have all cards on the table, how much sense would the alternative >> make (i.e. not land this final patch while a lot of this feature code >> has already been merged) ? > > If the patch was merged now, while it's not a user-visible feature > per-se, I think oslo.messaging is something we would celebrate in the > Havana release e.g. > > While OpenStack continues to add new projects and developers while, > in parallel, aggressively takes steps to enable the project to scale. > The oslo.messaging library added in the Havana release is an example > of where code which was previously copied and pasted between projects > and has now been re-factored out into a shared library with a clean > API. This library will provide a structured way for OpenStack > projects to collaborate on adopting new messaging patterns and > features without the disruption of incompatible API changes nor the > pain of keeping copied and pasted code in sync. > > Obviously, as Oslo PTL, I think this is an important theme that we > should continue to emphasise and build momentum around. The messaging > library is by far the most significant example so far of how this > process of creating libraries can be effective. Nova using the library > in the Havana release would (IMHO) be the signal that this process is > working and hopefully inspire others to take a similar approach with > other chunks of common code. > > Conversely, if we delayed merging this code until Icehouse, I think it > would leave somewhat of a question mark hanging over oslo.messaging and > Oslo going into the summit: > > Is this oslo.messaging thing for real? Or will it be abandoned and we > need to continue with the oslo-incubator RPC code? Why is it taking so > long to create these libraries? This sucks! > > That's all very meta, I know. But I do really believe making progress > with Oslo libraries is important for OpenStack long-term. While it's not > a user-visible benefit per-se, I do think this work benefits the project > broadly and is also something worth marketing. > > We measure our progress in terms of what we achieved in each release > cycle. I think we've made great progress on oslo.messaging in Havana, > but unless a project uses it in the release it won't be something we > really celebrate until Icehouse. > > If we agree the risk is manageable, I hope the above shows there is > ample benefit in comparison to the risk. I'm actually quite impressed that we were able to merge as much of this as we did given how big it was and that it started mid-h3. If fewer patches had merged, waiting to Icehouse would look a lot more painful. I'm not sure that Nova gains a whole lot by merging this now vs in a few weeks. The arguments for merging seem to be less technical, and more around project momentum. I totally get that and would like to support it. I wonder though, what if we merged this as soon as master opens up for Icehouse development, which would be before the summit? If we went that route, the project momentum would still be there going into the summit. There should be less of a question of "if" around oslo.messaging, and more about how and when you can get the rest of the projects converted to use it. I propose a NACK on the FFE, and instead going with the above plan. -- Russell Bryant ___
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 10:59 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova > > to oslo.messaging: > > > > https://review.openstack.org/39929 > > I'm generally adverse to granting feature freeze exceptions to code > refactoring: the user benefit of having them in the release is > inexistent, while they introduce some risk by changing deep code > relatively late in the cycle. That's why I prefer those to be targeted > to earlier development milestones, this avoids having to make hard calls > once all the work is done and almost completed. Yes, absolutely understood. To be clear - while I think there's a strong case for an exception here, I am very close to this, so I would be cool with a denial of this request. > That said, if the risk is under control and the patch is ready to merge, > I'm fine with this as long as there is some other benefits in having it > *in* the release rather than landed first thing in icehouse. > > Would having it *in* the release facilitate stable/havana branch > maintenance, for example ? > > > While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, it > > would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort all > > through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator into a > > library. > > Could you expand on why this would be a lot more helpful to have it in > the release rather than early in icehouse ? > > And to have all cards on the table, how much sense would the alternative > make (i.e. not land this final patch while a lot of this feature code > has already been merged) ? If the patch was merged now, while it's not a user-visible feature per-se, I think oslo.messaging is something we would celebrate in the Havana release e.g. While OpenStack continues to add new projects and developers while, in parallel, aggressively takes steps to enable the project to scale. The oslo.messaging library added in the Havana release is an example of where code which was previously copied and pasted between projects and has now been re-factored out into a shared library with a clean API. This library will provide a structured way for OpenStack projects to collaborate on adopting new messaging patterns and features without the disruption of incompatible API changes nor the pain of keeping copied and pasted code in sync. Obviously, as Oslo PTL, I think this is an important theme that we should continue to emphasise and build momentum around. The messaging library is by far the most significant example so far of how this process of creating libraries can be effective. Nova using the library in the Havana release would (IMHO) be the signal that this process is working and hopefully inspire others to take a similar approach with other chunks of common code. Conversely, if we delayed merging this code until Icehouse, I think it would leave somewhat of a question mark hanging over oslo.messaging and Oslo going into the summit: Is this oslo.messaging thing for real? Or will it be abandoned and we need to continue with the oslo-incubator RPC code? Why is it taking so long to create these libraries? This sucks! That's all very meta, I know. But I do really believe making progress with Oslo libraries is important for OpenStack long-term. While it's not a user-visible benefit per-se, I do think this work benefits the project broadly and is also something worth marketing. We measure our progress in terms of what we achieved in each release cycle. I think we've made great progress on oslo.messaging in Havana, but unless a project uses it in the release it won't be something we really celebrate until Icehouse. If we agree the risk is manageable, I hope the above shows there is ample benefit in comparison to the risk. Thanks, Mark. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
On 05/09/13 16:51 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 11:00 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: On 09/05/2013 10:17 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hi > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova > to oslo.messaging: > > https://review.openstack.org/39929 > > While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, it > would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort all > through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator into a > library. > > In terms of risk of regression, there is certainly some risk but that > risk is mitigated by the fact that the core code of each of the > transport drivers has been modified minimally. The idea was to delay > re-factoring these drivers until we were sure that we hadn't caused any > regressions in Nova. The code has been happily passing the > devstack/tempest based integration tests for 10 days now. When do you expect major refactoring to happen in oslo.messaging? I get that the current code was minimally modified, but I just want to understand how the timelines line up with the release and ongoing maintenance of the Havana release. Yep, good question. AFAIR we discussed this at the last Oslo IRC meeting and decided that re-factoring will wait until Icehouse so we can more easily sync fixes from oslo-incubator to oslo.messaging. Porting Quantum, Cinder, Ceilometer and Heat, memoving the code from oslo-incubator and re-factoring the drivers in oslo.messaging would be goals for early on in the Icehouse cycle. FWIW, yes, this is what we discussed in the last meeting. -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
Mark McLoughlin wrote: > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova > to oslo.messaging: > > https://review.openstack.org/39929 I'm generally adverse to granting feature freeze exceptions to code refactoring: the user benefit of having them in the release is inexistent, while they introduce some risk by changing deep code relatively late in the cycle. That's why I prefer those to be targeted to earlier development milestones, this avoids having to make hard calls once all the work is done and almost completed. That said, if the risk is under control and the patch is ready to merge, I'm fine with this as long as there is some other benefits in having it *in* the release rather than landed first thing in icehouse. Would having it *in* the release facilitate stable/havana branch maintenance, for example ? > While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, it > would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort all > through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator into a > library. Could you expand on why this would be a lot more helpful to have it in the release rather than early in icehouse ? And to have all cards on the table, how much sense would the alternative make (i.e. not land this final patch while a lot of this feature code has already been merged) ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 11:00 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 09/05/2013 10:17 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Hi > > > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova > > to oslo.messaging: > > > > https://review.openstack.org/39929 > > > > While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, it > > would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort all > > through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator into a > > library. > > > > In terms of risk of regression, there is certainly some risk but that > > risk is mitigated by the fact that the core code of each of the > > transport drivers has been modified minimally. The idea was to delay > > re-factoring these drivers until we were sure that we hadn't caused any > > regressions in Nova. The code has been happily passing the > > devstack/tempest based integration tests for 10 days now. > > When do you expect major refactoring to happen in oslo.messaging? I get > that the current code was minimally modified, but I just want to > understand how the timelines line up with the release and ongoing > maintenance of the Havana release. Yep, good question. AFAIR we discussed this at the last Oslo IRC meeting and decided that re-factoring will wait until Icehouse so we can more easily sync fixes from oslo-incubator to oslo.messaging. Porting Quantum, Cinder, Ceilometer and Heat, memoving the code from oslo-incubator and re-factoring the drivers in oslo.messaging would be goals for early on in the Icehouse cycle. Cheers, Mark. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
On 09/05/2013 10:17 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hi > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova > to oslo.messaging: > > https://review.openstack.org/39929 > > While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, it > would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort all > through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator into a > library. > > In terms of risk of regression, there is certainly some risk but that > risk is mitigated by the fact that the core code of each of the > transport drivers has been modified minimally. The idea was to delay > re-factoring these drivers until we were sure that we hadn't caused any > regressions in Nova. The code has been happily passing the > devstack/tempest based integration tests for 10 days now. When do you expect major refactoring to happen in oslo.messaging? I get that the current code was minimally modified, but I just want to understand how the timelines line up with the release and ongoing maintenance of the Havana release. -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
Thanks Mark. Looks like we need to get someone to manually trigger Smokestack to run against this review at least once since i don't see any +1's from Smokestack for some reason. On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 10:43 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > Mark, > > > > Has this changeset get through a full tempest with QPid enabled? > > No, I've only done local testing with the qpid transport to date. > > I think Smokestack is the only CI tool actively testing the qpid driver. > I ran out of time adding oslo.messaging to Smokestack before heading off > on vacation, but I expect I'll get to it next week. > > Cheers, > Mark. > > > > > > thanks, > > dims > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Mark McLoughlin > wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > > > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova > to > > > oslo.messaging: > > > > > > https://review.openstack.org/39929 > > > > > > While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, > it > > > would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort > all > > > through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator into > a > > > library. > > > > > > In terms of risk of regression, there is certainly some risk but that > risk > > > is mitigated by the fact that the core code of each of the transport > > > drivers has been modified minimally. The idea was to delay re-factoring > > > these drivers until we were sure that we hadn't caused any regressions > in > > > Nova. The code has been happily passing the devstack/tempest based > > > integration tests for 10 days now. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mark. > > > > > > ___ > > > 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 > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
Hi On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 10:43 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Mark, > > Has this changeset get through a full tempest with QPid enabled? No, I've only done local testing with the qpid transport to date. I think Smokestack is the only CI tool actively testing the qpid driver. I ran out of time adding oslo.messaging to Smokestack before heading off on vacation, but I expect I'll get to it next week. Cheers, Mark. > > thanks, > dims > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova to > > oslo.messaging: > > > > https://review.openstack.org/39929 > > > > While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, it > > would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort all > > through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator into a > > library. > > > > In terms of risk of regression, there is certainly some risk but that risk > > is mitigated by the fact that the core code of each of the transport > > drivers has been modified minimally. The idea was to delay re-factoring > > these drivers until we were sure that we hadn't caused any regressions in > > Nova. The code has been happily passing the devstack/tempest based > > integration tests for 10 days now. > > > > Thanks, > > Mark. > > > > ___ > > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] FFE Request: oslo-messaging
Mark, Has this changeset get through a full tempest with QPid enabled? thanks, dims On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hi > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception for the final (and > admittedly the largest) patch in the series of 40 patches to port Nova to > oslo.messaging: > > https://review.openstack.org/39929 > > While this change doesn't provide any immediate user-visible benefit, it > would be massively helpful in maintaining momentum behind the effort all > through the Havana cycle to move the RPC code from oslo-incubator into a > library. > > In terms of risk of regression, there is certainly some risk but that risk > is mitigated by the fact that the core code of each of the transport > drivers has been modified minimally. The idea was to delay re-factoring > these drivers until we were sure that we hadn't caused any regressions in > Nova. The code has been happily passing the devstack/tempest based > integration tests for 10 days now. > > Thanks, > Mark. > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
