[Rdo-list] reconsidering midstream repos

Dmitry Tantsur dtantsur at redhat.com
Thu May 28 08:34:29 UTC 2015

On 05/26/2015 09:06 PM, James Slagle wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 02:55:57PM +0200, Hugh O. Brock wrote:
>> Seems like the midstream repos are causing us a lot of pain with little
>> gain, at least in some cases. (For example it appears the t-h-t
>> midstream exists to carry a single patch that enables mongodb on
>> Centos.) Is it worth discussing whether we can eliminate some of these,
>> especially for upstreams like t-h-t that aren't tightly tied to the
>> OpenStack release schedule?
>> /me ducks flying bricks
> No flying bricks from me anyway :)
> I agree with what you're saying, but would like to agree on what we're actually
> meaning.  I think it's great that pretty much exactly what we said would happen
> has happened: as Kilo nears completion, the patches that we're having to carry
> for RDO-Manager is approaching 0.

For the record: it's not the case for Ironic, Ironic client and even 
discoverd. Also 1 Nova patch won't go away.

> But before we say, let's kill the midstream repos...let's consider why we even
> have them to begin with.
> We didn't come up with the idea to fork a bunch of projects because it would
> make our *development* lives for RDO-Manager easier. In fact, it's exactly the
> opposite, they cause pain.
> So why do we have them? Quite simply it's because of the demand that we show,
> commit to, and support features in RDO-Manager prior to them necessarily
> merging in upstream OpenStack projects.
> If we can lift that requirement, we could likely do away with the midstream
> repos entirely.  I know this is rdo-list, but in the spirit of being open, if
> we don't have midstream repos for RDO-Manager, then we shouldn't have them for
> OSP either, and we should only be committing to features as they land in
> upstream OpenStack.
> It doesn't make sense to me to drop the midstream repos for RDO-Manager, but
> then turn around and set them up privately for OSP. At least with them setup
> for RDO, we're doing the development of the management product in the open. In
> fact if we were to split like this, I think the pain would only intensify.
> It's pragmatic to say that anyone looking to productize OpenStack is going to
> have their own bug fixes/etc that they need, and maybe even some features. But
> setting up private forks as a general development principal to drive OpenStack
> based product development should be avoided at all costs.
> So yes, I'm +1 on dropping the midstream repos if they're no longer needed.
> But I'm -1 on then turning around and setting them up privately so that we can
> commit code to private forks because that code hasn't landed in upstream
> OpenStack yet. If we can agree that this isn't needed, then I think we can do
> without the midstream. Otherwise, if we're going to insist on forks to "land"
> features prior to them merging upstream, let's at least keep them public.
> There's a couple other facets to the discussion as well:
> The midstream repos is a place where we can preview where the management
> product is headed. For example, the Heat breakpoint work was available from the
> midstream repos much earlier than it ended up merging into Heat/heatclient.
> Some devs/users might find this sort of thing really useful, and could provide
> some early feedback for RDO-Manager.
> The midstream repos are also a place where we can quickly land reverts to
> unblock work. The Neutron regression that broke provisioning via Ironic this
> past cycle immediately comes to mind...it took a couple of weeks before the
> upstream revert even landed in Neutron. While that was broken, we carried the
> proposed revert in the midstream repos so that people could install a Neutron
> that actually worked for RDO-Manager.
>> --Hugh
>> --
>> == Hugh Brock, hbrock at redhat.com                                   ==
>> == Senior Engineering Manager, Cloud Engineering                   ==
>> == RDO Manager: Install, configure, and scale OpenStack            ==
>> == http://rdoproject.org                                           ==
>> "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m
>> not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
>> --Robert McCloskey
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rdo-list mailing list
>> Rdo-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
>> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com
> --
> -- James Slagle
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Rdo-list mailing list
> Rdo-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com

More information about the dev mailing list