[openstack-dev] [TripleO] on supporting multiple implementations of tripleo-heat-templates

Clint Byrum clint at fewbar.com
Fri Apr 17 16:37:18 UTC 2015

Excerpts from Giulio Fidente's message of 2015-04-17 06:21:28 -0700:
> Hi,
> the Heat/Puppet implementation of the Overcloud deployment seems to be 
> surpassing in features the Heat/Elements implementation.
> The changes for Ceph are an example, the Puppet based version is already 
> adding features which don't have they counterpart into Elements based.
> Recently we started working on the addition of Pacemaker into the 
> Overcloud, to monitor the services and provide a number of 'auto 
> healing' features, and again this is happening in the Puppet 
> implementation only (at least for now) so I think the gap will become 
> bigger.
> Given we support different implementations with a single top-level 
> template [1], to keep other templates valid we're forced to propagate 
> the params into the Elements based templates as well, even though there 
> is no use for these there, see for example [2].
> The extra work itself is not of great concern but I wonder if it 
> wouldn't make sense to deprecate the Elements based templates at this 
> point, instead of keep adding there unused parts? Thoughts?

In a perfect world, templates wouldn't have implementation details like
puppet-anything in them. We all know that isn't true, but in a perfect
world.. ;)

I was just wondering the other day if anybody is relying on the non-puppet
jobs anymore. I think from my view of things, the "elements" approach
can be deprecated and removed if nobody steps up to maintain them.

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list