On 04/08/2015 11:25 AM, Dolph Mathews wrote: > 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?
The version is hard-coded as part of the patch process. Not useful in non-package based environments where the version isn't static, unfortunately. __________________________________________________________________________ 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
