--Apple-Mail=_ACF5413A-13CC-4346-8896-6D8417D816A9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
On 26 Jan 2016, at 19:13, Oved Ourfali <oourfali(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
=20
I must agree with Martin here.=20
In addition, I think the benefit here is low, and the efforts it will =
require and
the risks are high. Upgrade issues? Compatibility ones? =
Effect on engine features such as host upgrade manager, different =
provisioning products that might rely on that such as puppet recipes, =
ansible modules, or others..=20
(can't say all mentioned stuff are relevant, and I guess there
might =
be more implications than I've described).
=20
IMHO, we should spend our time improving our project rather than spend =
a lot of
developers, testers and integration people on these kind of =
tasks.
=20
+1
I like vdsm.=20
any variant with =E2=80=9Cagent=E2=80=9D brings confusion with guest =
agent (let alone the fact we have three of them)
In addition, bootstrapping of hosts doesn't require manual =
installation of VDSM, and as of 3.6 neither does upgrade, so most users =
shouldn't know and care what VDSM is.
=20
> Regards,=20
> Oved=20
=20
> On Jan 26, 2016 7:00 PM, "Martin Sivak"
<msivak(a)redhat.com =
<mailto:msivak@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> name change might be considered, but I do not think it will make a =
big
> difference. People do not see vdsm too often (installed by host
> deploy, managed by engine..).
>
>
> But trying to make sure that (all?) component versions in a project
> are the same is not a good idea if you ask me. You are not going to
> rebuild everything when a hot fix is needed, but granted, you might
> use minor numbers so the versions will at least start with the same
> numbers. Or will we force a version bump and rebuild to unchanged
> component, when others were updated for a given release? (we have
> components like that - ovirt-scheduler-proxy for example)
>
> Engine does not depend on an exact vdsm version, we have gradual
> feature degradation built in in form of capabilities, machine type =
and
> cluster levels so it should be totally up to the user what
version =
of
> vdsm is used. The same we do not control libvirt or kernel. Some
of
> the components (at least on my side) are completely usable without
> oVirt and when oVirt is released it just gets the latest stable bits
> available.
>
> Why don't we treat oVirt as a package distribution it is? The long
> term plan still is to break the monoliths (like vdsm or engine) and
> the possibly new teams (or community) might have different needs.. =
we
> might even want to promote reuse of some of the components (like
=
[2])
> in oVirt unrelated way and I would really love to see that kind
of
> adoption. We are trying to keep so much control that we are an open
> project, but not a community one (where the community can influence
> future plans, release schedules, workflows or processes).
>
> Neither Fedora, nor RHEL (Debian, ..) try to control the version of
> components. They depend purely on package dependencies and separate
> component development from distribution compose processes (something
> we lack..). Even OpenStack abandoned the unified versioning last =
year
> (at least partially) [1]. We decided to use similar age based
> versioning like described in [1] when I was still part of the =
Anaconda
> team and it worked perfectly fine.
>
> I really wish we would loosen the project coupling (and processes)
> instead of tightening it. Sadly everything we have done lately is
> going in the tightening direction...
>
>
>
> TL;DR: Please let us use whatever versions of packages we want,
> release as often as we want and just take the latest bits to compose
> the oVirt distribution. Most of the components we have handle that
> just fine.
>
> [1] OpenStack versioning plans:
http://ttx.re/new-versioning.html =
<
http://ttx.re/new-versioning.html> (and
> please pay particular attention to the last section and
especially =
the
> last two paragraphs in it)
> [2] There was a thread about vdsm RPMs being too granular:
>
http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/2016-January/012185.html =
<
http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/2016-January/012185.html>
>
> --
> Martin Sivak
> oVirt / SLA
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel(a)ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org>
>
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel =
<
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--Apple-Mail=_ACF5413A-13CC-4346-8896-6D8417D816A9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type"
content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><br class=3D""><div><blockquote
type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On 26 Jan 2016, at 19:13, Oved Ourfali <<a =
href=3D"mailto:oourfali@redhat.com"
class=3D"">oourfali(a)redhat.com</a>&gt;=
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div
class=3D""><p =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">I must agree with Martin here. <br
class=3D"">
In addition, I think the benefit here is low, and the efforts it will =
require and the risks are high. Upgrade issues? Compatibility ones? =
Effect on engine features such as host upgrade manager, different =
provisioning products that might rely on that such as puppet recipes, =
ansible modules, or others.. <br class=3D"">
(can't say all mentioned stuff are relevant, and I guess there might be =
more implications than I've described). </p><p dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">IMHO, we should spend our time improving our project rather =
than spend a lot of developers, testers and integration people on these =
kind of tasks. </p></div></blockquote><div><br =
class=3D""></div>+1</div><div>I like
vdsm. </div><div>any variant =
with =E2=80=9Cagent=E2=80=9D brings confusion with guest agent (let =
alone the fact we have three of them)</div><div><br
class=3D""><blockquote=
type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><p
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">In =
addition, bootstrapping of hosts doesn't require manual installation of =
VDSM, and as of 3.6 neither does upgrade, so most users shouldn't know =
and care what VDSM is.</p><p dir=3D"ltr"
class=3D"">Regards, <br =
class=3D"">
Oved <br class=3D""></p><p dir=3D"ltr"
class=3D"">On Jan 26, 2016 7:00 =
PM, "Martin Sivak" <<a href=3D"mailto:msivak@redhat.com" =
class=3D"">msivak(a)redhat.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br
class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
> Hi,<br class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
> name change might be considered, but I do not think it will make a =
big<br class=3D"">
> difference. People do not see vdsm too often (installed by host<br =
class=3D"">
> deploy, managed by engine..).<br class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
> But trying to make sure that (all?) component versions in a =
project<br class=3D"">
> are the same is not a good idea if you ask me. You are not going =
to<br class=3D"">
> rebuild everything when a hot fix is needed, but granted, you =
might<br class=3D"">
> use minor numbers so the versions will at least start with the =
same<br class=3D"">
> numbers. Or will we force a version bump and rebuild to =
unchanged<br class=3D"">
> component, when others were updated for a given release? (we =
have<br class=3D"">
> components like that - ovirt-scheduler-proxy for example)<br =
class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
> Engine does not depend on an exact vdsm version, we have gradual<br =
class=3D"">
> feature degradation built in in form of capabilities, machine type =
and<br class=3D"">
> cluster levels so it should be totally up to the user what version =
of<br class=3D"">
> vdsm is used. The same we do not control libvirt or kernel. Some =
of<br class=3D"">
> the components (at least on my side) are completely usable =
without<br class=3D"">
> oVirt and when oVirt is released it just gets the latest stable =
bits<br class=3D"">
> available.<br class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
> Why don't we treat oVirt as a package distribution it is? The =
long<br class=3D"">
> term plan still is to break the monoliths (like vdsm or engine) =
and<br class=3D"">
> the possibly new teams (or community) might have different needs.. =
we<br class=3D"">
> might even want to promote reuse of some of the components (like =
[2])<br class=3D"">
> in oVirt unrelated way and I would really love to see that kind =
of<br class=3D"">
> adoption. We are trying to keep so much control that we are an =
open<br class=3D"">
> project, but not a community one (where the community can =
influence<br class=3D"">
> future plans, release schedules, workflows or processes).<br =
class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
> Neither Fedora, nor RHEL (Debian, ..) try to control the version =
of<br class=3D"">
> components. They depend purely on package dependencies and =
separate<br class=3D"">
> component development from distribution compose processes =
(something<br class=3D"">
> we lack..). Even OpenStack abandoned the unified versioning last =
year<br class=3D"">
> (at least partially) [1]. We decided to use similar age based<br =
class=3D"">
> versioning like described in [1] when I was still part of the =
Anaconda<br class=3D"">
> team and it worked perfectly fine.<br class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
> I really wish we would loosen the project coupling (and =
processes)<br class=3D"">
> instead of tightening it. Sadly everything we have done lately =
is<br class=3D"">
> going in the tightening direction...<br class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
> TL;DR: Please let us use whatever versions of packages we want,<br =
class=3D"">
> release as often as we want and just take the latest bits to =
compose<br class=3D"">
> the oVirt distribution. Most of the components we have handle =
that<br class=3D"">
> just fine.<br class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
> [1] OpenStack versioning plans: <a =
href=3D"http://ttx.re/new-versioning.html" =
class=3D"">http://ttx.re/new-versioning.html</a> (and<br
class=3D"">
> please pay particular attention to the last section and especially =
the<br class=3D"">
> last two paragraphs in it)<br class=3D"">
> [2] There was a thread about vdsm RPMs being too granular:<br =
class=3D"">
> <a =
href=3D"http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/2016-January/012185.h... =
class=3D"">http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/2016-Janua...
</a><br class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
> --<br class=3D"">
> Martin Sivak<br class=3D"">
> oVirt / SLA<br class=3D"">
> _______________________________________________<br class=3D"">
> Devel mailing list<br class=3D"">
> <a href=3D"mailto:Devel@ovirt.org"
class=3D"">Devel(a)ovirt.org</a><br =
class=3D"">
> <a
href=3D"http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" =
class=3D"">http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel<... =
class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
</p>
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">Devel =
mailing list<br class=3D""><a href=3D"mailto:Devel@ovirt.org"
=
class=3D"">Devel(a)ovirt.org</a><br =
class=3D"">http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel<...
</div><br class=3D""></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_ACF5413A-13CC-4346-8896-6D8417D816A9--