I've mocked up the change to implementation using the already landed changes to ceph as an example
https://review.openstack.org/295571 On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:44 PM Andrew Woodward <xar...@gmail.com> wrote: > We had originally planned for the FFEs for both fuel-openstack-tasks[1] > and fuel-remove-conflict-openstack to [2] to close on 3/20, This would have > placed them before changes that conflict with > fuel-refactor-osnailyfacter-for-puppet-master-compatibility [3]. > > [1] > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088297.html > [2] > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088298.html > [3] > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/089028.html > > However we found this morning that the changes from [2], and more of issue > [1] will result in further issues such as [4], where as the task files > move, any task that explicitly relied on it, now no longer is in the same > path. > > [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/295170/ > > Due to this newly identified issue with backwards comparability. It > appears that [4] shows that we have plugins using interfaces that we don't > have formal coverage for so If we introduce this set of changes, we will > cause breakage for plugins that use fuel's current tasks. > > From a deprecation standpoint we don't have a way to deal with this, > unless fuel-openstack-tasks [1] lands after > fuel-refactor-osnailyfacter-for-puppet-master-compatibility [3]. In this > case we can take advantage of the class include stubs, leaving a copy in > the old location (osnailyfacter/modular/roles/compute.pp) pointing to the > new include location (include openstack_tasks::roles::compute) and adding a > warning for deprecation. The tasks includes in the new location > openstack_tasks/examples/roles/compute.pp would simply include the updated > class location w/o the warning. > > This would take care of [1] and it's review [5] > > [5] https://review.openstack.org/283332 > > This still leaves [2] un-addressed, we still have 3 open CR for it: > > [6] Compute https://review.openstack.org/285567 > [7] Cinder https://review.openstack.org/294736 > [8] Swift https://review.openstack.org/294979 > > Compute [6] is in good shape, while Cinder [7] and Swift [8] are not. For > these do we want to continue to land them, if so what do we want to do > about the now deprecated openstack:: tasks? We could leave them in place > with a warning since we would not be using them > > -- > > -- > > Andrew Woodward > > Mirantis > > Fuel Community Ambassador > > Ceph Community > -- -- Andrew Woodward Mirantis Fuel Community Ambassador Ceph Community
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
