On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:49 PM Nathan Cutler <ncutler@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > But any tool for looking > > at Ceph behavior either needs to be tailored to a specific Ceph > > version, or be able to handle receiving data it doesn't understand > > without going crazy. > > This thread reminds me of a similar thread we had about ceph-volume > living inside or outside of the ceph/ceph repo. > > Wherever the tool lives, it has to be tailored to a specific Ceph > (major) version, e.g. "Luminous" or "Nautilus". As the adjective "major" > indicates, from one major version to another, major changes take place. This is not accurate for ceph-volume, as we are in a position where we need to backport every feature. What exists in the master branch exists all the way back to Luminous, which requires us to deal with the changes in APIs (e.g. from Luminous to Mimic). > > Having the tool inside the ceph/ceph repo makes this explicit, because > each major version of Ceph will then automatically, by the very nature > of the thing, have its own major version of said tool. In my experience, > when a Ceph-related tool lives "outside" it becomes harder to determine > (and enforce) which version of the tool is supposed to work with which > version of Ceph. > > Nathan
