Some of us are actively watching the thread / participating. I'll make sure it gets on the TC agenda in the near future.
I think most of the recommendations are quite good, especially on the client support front for clients / tools within our community. On 09/30/2015 10:37 PM, Matt Fischer wrote: > Thanks for summarizing this Mark. What's the best way to get feedback > about this to the TC? I'd love to see some of the items which I think > are common sense for anyone who can't just blow away devstack and start > over to get added for consideration. > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Mark Voelker <mvoel...@vmware.com > <mailto:mvoel...@vmware.com>> wrote: > > > Mark T. Voelker > > > > > On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Matt Fischer <m...@mattfischer.com > <mailto:m...@mattfischer.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree with John Griffith. I don't have any empirical evidences > to back > > my "feelings" on that one but it's true that we weren't enable to > enable > > Cinder v2 until now. > > > > Which makes me wonder: When can we actually deprecate an API > version? I > > *feel* we are fast to jump on the deprecation when the replacement > isn't > > 100% ready yet for several versions. > > > > -- > > Mathieu > > > > > > I don't think it's too much to ask that versions can't be > deprecated until the new version is 100% working, passing all tests, > and the clients (at least python-xxxclients) can handle it without > issues. Ideally I'd like to also throw in the criteria that > devstack, rally, tempest, and other services are all using and > exercising the new API. > > > > I agree that things feel rushed. > > > FWIW, the TC recently created an assert:follows-standard-deprecation > tag. Ivan linked to a thread in which Thierry asked for input on > it, but FYI the final language as it was approved last week [1] is a > bit different than originally proposed. It now requires one release > plus 3 linear months of deprecated-but-still-present-in-the-tree as > a minimum, and recommends at least two full stable releases for > significant features (an entire API version would undoubtedly fall > into that bucket). It also requires that a migration path will be > documented. However to Matt’s point, it doesn’t contain any > language that says specific things like: > > In the case of major API version deprecation: > * $oldversion and $newversion must both work with > [cinder|nova|whatever]client and openstackclient during the > deprecation period. > * It must be possible to run $oldversion and $newversion > concurrently on the servers to ensure end users don’t have to switch > overnight. > * Devstack uses $newversion by default. > * $newversion works in Tempest/Rally/whatever else. > > What it *does* do is require that a thread be started here on > openstack-operators [2] so that operators can provide feedback. I > would hope that feedback like “I can’t get clients to use it so > please don’t remove it yet” would be taken into account by projects, > which seems to be exactly what’s happening in this case with Cinder > v1. =) > > I’d hazard a guess that the TC would be interested in hearing about > whether you think that plan is a reasonable one (and given that TC > election season is upon us, candidates for the TC probably would too). > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/207467/ > [2] > > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/tags/assert_follows-standard-deprecation.rst#n59 > > At Your Service, > > Mark T. Voelker > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __________________________________________________________________________ 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
