Open Stack

Hi Ruslan,

Thanks for your feedback. I completely agree with these arguments:
actually, these were the reasons why I've initiated this discussion.

Team, let's discuss this on the IRC meeting today.

--
Regards,
Alexander Tivelkov


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Ruslan Kamaldinov <rkamaldinov at mirantis.com
> wrote:

> I'd suggest to reduce number of Murano repositories for several reasons:
>
> * All other OpenStack projects have a single repo per project. While this
> point might look like something not worth mentioning, it's really
> important:
> - unified project structure simplifies life for new developers. once they
> get familiar with one project, they can expect something similar from
> another project
> - unified project structure simplifies life for deployers. similar project
> structure simplifies packaging and deployment automation
>
> * Another important reason is to simplify gated testing. Just take a look
> at
> Solum layout [1], they have everything needed (contrib, functionaltests) to
> run dvsm job in a single repo. One simple job definition [2] allows to
> install Solum in DevStack and run Tempest tests for Solum.
>
> * As a side-effect, this approach will improve integrity of project
> components. Having murano-common in the same repo with other components
> will
> help to catch integration issues earlier.
>
>
> In an ideal world there will be only the following repos:
> - murano (api, common, conductor, docs, repository, tests)
> - python-muranoclient
> - murano-dashboard
> - murano-agent
> - puppet-murano (optional, but nice to have)
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/stackforge/solum
> [2]
> https://github.com/openstack-infra/config/blob/master/modules/openstack_project/files/jenkins_job_builder/config/solum.yaml
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ruslan
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Serg Melikyan <smelikyan at mirantis.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi, Alexander,
>>
>> In general I am completely agree with Clint and Robert, and as one of
>> contributors of Murano I don't see any practical reasons for repositories
>> reorganization. And regarding of your proposal I have a few thoughts that I
>> would like to share below:
>>
>> >This enourmous amount of repositories adds too much infrustructural
>> complexity
>> Creating a new repository is a quick, easy and completely automated
>> procedure that requires only simple commit to Zuul configuration. All
>> infrastructure related to repositories is handled by Openstack CI and
>> supported by Openstack Infra Team, and actually don't require anything from
>> project development team. About what infrastructure complexity you are
>> talking about?
>>
>> >I actually think keeping them separate is a great way to make sure you
>> have ongoing API stability. (c) Clint
>> I would like to share a little statistic gathered by Stan Lagun
>> a little time ago regarding repositories count in different PaaS solution.
>> If you are concerned about large number of repositories used by Murano, you
>> will be quite amused:
>>
>>    - https://github.com/heroku - 275
>>    - https://github.com/cloudfoundry - 132
>>     - https://github.com/openshift - 49
>>    - https://github.com/CloudifySource - 46
>>
>> >First of all, I would suggest to have a single reposository for all the
>> three main components of Murano: main murano API (the contents of the
>> present), workflow execution engine (currently murano-conductor; also it
>> was suggested to rename the component itself to murano-engine for more
>> consistent naming) and metadata repository (currently murano-repository).
>>
>> *murano-api* and *murano-repository* have many things in common, they
>> are both present HTTP API to the user, and I hope would be rewritten to
>> common framework (Pecan?). But *murano-conductor* have only one thing in
>> common with other two components: code shared under *murano-common*.
>> That repository may be eventually eliminated by moving to Oslo (as it
>> should be done).
>>
>> >Also, it has been suggested to move our agents (both windows and
>> unified python) into the main repository as well - just to put them into a
>> separate subfolder. I don't see any reasons why they should be separated
>> from core Murano: I don't believe we are going to have any third-party
>> implementations of our "Unified agent" proposals, while this possibility
>> was the main reason for separatinng them.
>>
>> Main reason for murano-agent to have separate repository was not a
>> possibility to have another implementation, but that all sources that
>> should be able to be built as package, have tests and can be uploaded to
>> PyPI (or any other gate job) should be placed in different repository.
>> OpenStack CI have several rules regarding how repositories should be
>> organized to support running different gate jobs. For example, to run tests
>> *tox.ini* is need to be present in root directory, to build package
>> *setup.py* should be present in root directory. So we could not simply
>> move them to separate directories in main repository and have same
>> capabilities as in separate repository.
>>
>> >Next, deployment scripts and auto-generated docs: are there reasons why
>> they should be in their own repositories, instead of "docs" and
>> "tools/deployment" folders of the primary repo? I would prefer the latter:
>> docs and deployment scripts have no meaning without the sources which they
>> document/deploy - so it is better to have them consistent.
>> We have *developers documentation* alongside with all sources:
>> murano-conductor<https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor/tree/master/doc/source>,
>> murano-api<https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api/tree/master/doc/source> and
>> so on. It is true that we have not so much documentation there, and not
>> much code is documented to add auto-generated documentation. Documentation
>> that is found in *murano-docs* repository actually is a docbook
>> documentation, that is presented in book manner, and follows documentation
>> patterns found in core projects itself: openstack-manuals<https://github.com/openstack/openstack-manuals/tree/master/doc>
>> .
>>
>> *murano-deployment* contains scripts and other artefacts related to
>> deployment, but not necessary to source code. This repository don't use
>> much of CI capabilities, but raise it is logical place where we can place
>> different thing related to deployment: various scripts, specs, patches and
>> so on. Also with separate repository we can not to spam our deployment
>> engineers with software engineers related commits.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Alexander Tivelkov <
>> ativelkov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> As we are moving towards incubation application, I took a closer look at
>>> what is going on with our repositories.
>>> An here is what I found. We currently have 11 repositories at stackforge:
>>>
>>>    - murano-api
>>>    - murano-conductor
>>>    - murano-repository
>>>    - murano-dashboard
>>>    - murano-common
>>>    - python-muranoclient
>>>    - murano-metadataclient
>>>    - murano-agent
>>>    - murano-docs
>>>    - murano-tests
>>>    - murano-deployment
>>>
>>> This enourmous amount of repositories adds too much infrustructural
>>> complexity, and maintaining the changes in in consistent and reliable
>>> manner becomes a really tricky tasks. We often have changes which require
>>> modifing two or more repositories - and thus we have to make several
>>> changesets in gerrit, targeting different repositories. Quite often the
>>> dependencies between these changesets are not obvious, the patches get
>>> reviewed and approved on wrong order (yes, this also questions the quality
>>> of the code review, but that is a different topic), which causes in
>>> inconsostent state of the repositories.
>>>
>>> Well, anyway, this has to be changed in some way or another.
>>> I suggest to initiate the discussions on how to do all this.
>>>
>>> Below you may find my position. This is not final in any meaning, just a
>>> proposal. Please, feel free to discuss :)
>>>
>>> First of all, I would suggest to have a single reposository for all the
>>> three main components of Murano: main murano API (the contents of the
>>> present), workflow execution engine (currently murano-conductor; also it
>>> was suggested to rename the component itself to murano-engine for more
>>> consistent naming) and metadata repository (currently murano-repository).
>>> These should remain as independent modules, being able to run as
>>> different daemons, but stored within a single repository (similar to how
>>> heat has heat-api, heat-cfn and heat-engine under the same hood). The name
>>> of this repository is tentative: I think none of the existing match, so I
>>> would suggest to create a new repo (simple "murano" seems to fit the best),
>>> and then relocate all the content from other 3 repos and remove them
>>> aftwerwards.
>>>
>>> When the api, the repository and the engine are merged into a single
>>> repo, there will be no sense in having murano-common repo for storing their
>>> common classes: instead, there should be a "common" package inside the main
>>> murano repository.
>>>
>>> Also, it has been suggested to move our agents (both windows and unified
>>> python) into the main repository as well - just to put them into a separate
>>> subfolder. I don't see any reasons why they should be separated from core
>>> Murano: I don't believe we are going to have any third-party
>>> implementations of our "Unified agent" proposals, while this possibility
>>> was the main reason for separatinng them.
>>>
>>> Next, deployment scripts and auto-generated docs: are there reasons why
>>> they should be in their own repositories, instead of "docs" and
>>> "tools/deployment" folders of the primary repo? I would prefer the latter:
>>> docs and deployment scripts have no meaning without the sources which they
>>> document/deploy - so it is better to have them consistent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then, the python bindings: "There can be only one" (c). Yes, the
>>> metadata API and the main murano API are different indeed, however there is
>>> no reason in having two repositories for their clients: let's have a single
>>> repo, containing two packages inside. Are there any technical reasons
>>> preventing us from doing that?
>>> CLI should be common as well - I think there should be a single
>>> command-line utility ("murano" should be the name), allowing to query both
>>> APIs. This CLI will eventually evolve into the developer's utility: it will
>>> get commands to package, sign and submit application packages.
>>>
>>> Openstack Dashboard plugin - aka Murano-dashboard - should remain in a
>>> separated repo, I have no objections here :)
>>>
>>> murano-tests may reamin independent as well - however, this repository
>>> is not likely to be transferred when we go to incubation: incubated
>>> projects should have tempest test in their repositories, shoudn't they? Our
>>> our test may remain on stackforge - this is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> And finally, we need some place to store sources of our metadata
>>> objects: the definition of  core murano library, as well as example
>>> services, with all their stuff -  metadata and ui definitions, heat
>>> templates, scripts etc. Here I propose to create a new repo, specially
>>> dedicated for this purpose. If we succeed in building the ecosystem for
>>> application developers and publishers, this will be the repo in which they
>>> should contribute, while the core murano repo's will remain relativele
>>> stable.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, this brings us to the following list of repos:
>>>
>>>    - *murano* - main services, common, agents docs, deployments scripts
>>>    - *python-muranoclient* - python bindings and CLI
>>>    - *murano-dashboard* - OS Dashboard plugin
>>>    - *murano-apps* - new repo for metadata, including core library and
>>>    example apps.
>>>    - *murano-tests* - existing test-repo, not going to be transferred
>>>    when incubated.
>>>
>>>
>>> This leaves us with just 4 repositories (plus one additional which will
>>> remain on stackforge), with clear separation of concerns.
>>>
>>> There may be technical issues in doing this mergement (we do not want to
>>> loose revision history, do we?), but they should be solvable (I'll write to
>>> infra asking on what is possible and what is not), but in general this is
>>> the direction in which we should be moving, as it seems to me.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Alexander Tivelkov
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc.
>> http://mirantis.com | smelikyan at mirantis.com
>>
>> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261
>> +7 (903) 156-0836
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140218/7d925e70/attachment.html>