[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Rdo-list] python-*client packaging



On 26.5.2014 17:30, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: python-*client packaging
> Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 11:04:25 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Steve Gordon <sgordon redhat com>
> To: rdo-list redhat com
> CC: Padraig Brady <pbrady redhat com>, Russell Bryant <rbryant redhat com>
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I was answering a question on ask.o.o [1] over the weekend that caused me to ponder the way we're packaging the python-*clients in RDO. As the clients don't really follow the formal integrated release cycle no release tag was created at the point of the Icehouse release for python-novaclient and instead the most recent tag is 2.17.0 created around 3 months ago.

I wrote basic overview on RDO wiki:

http://openstack.redhat.com/Clients

Rebases to latest version are required quite often.


> This is what we package and means we're missing functionality that was merged between this tag being created and the Icehouse GA, most notably *all* of the server group commands - the API for which was a fairly important (but late - via a feature freeze exception) addition to Icehouse for some users. I am wondering whether, given tag creation is basically on the whim of the individual maintainer upstream, we should be rebasing the clients from master more regularly instead of relying on the tags?

Important patches are backported on demand. I'm not strictly against
including upstream patches in packages and in fact, it was done like
that in the past.

I stopped including upstream patches because I found it quite confusing
- version says 0.6.0 but there are SOME bugs/features from 0.7.0... So
I'm rather working with assumption that *client devs know best when to
release a new version.


> The bug I filed for this specific issue with python-novaclient is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101014 but I imagine we experience similar issues with the other clients from time to time.

That's a perfectly valid reason for a selective backport but as you
mentioned in the bug, it would be best to release new version which
includes this and rebase to it in order to stay somehow consistent with
the rest of the world.

So, Russel, do you plan to release new novaclient anytime soon or shall
I backport?


Cheers
Jakub


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]