Open Stack

Hey Kevin,

Thanks for the offer. We had discussed pulling in the module you wrote for
OSAD originally. The main blocker was we had an internal requirement of
being able to use Keystone v3 api. I have looked at the patch to make OSAD
v3, but it appears you are importing v3 directly rather than letting the
module decide whether to use v2.0 or v3. That may not work for our
community, but I will dig into it to determine if that conflicts with
anything for us. I will follow the patchset and once it merges Kolla can
discuss using that if it meets our needs until the Ansible Shade modules
land.

Additionally, I have left a review pointing you to an issue you may run
into with creating all of the endpoints with v3 directly as it appears you
are doing in that patchset's playbooks.

Sam Yaple

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
wrote:

>  Kevin,
>
>  Thanks for the offer.  I personally am not an expert in Ansible so not
> in a position to judge if this would be the appropriate path or using
> something small footprint with less stuff would be more appropriate for our
> needs.  I think we can all agree these types of modules don’t offer a lot
> of value to either of our systems and it doesn’t make a ton of sense having
> duplication of things when it offers no measurable value.
>
>  I’ll connect with Sam off list and we can make a decision as to a path
> forward.
>
>  Regards
> -steve
>
>
>   From: Kevin Carter <kevin.carter at RACKSPACE.COM>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 5:19 PM
> To: "sam at yaple.net" <sam at yaple.net>, "OpenStack Development Mailing List
> (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Cc: Greg DeKoenigsberg <greg at ansible.com>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Plans for using Pre-2.0 Ansible
> modules
>
>   We have several Ansible modules that we've been carrying[0] which were
> created in support of managing OpenStack. We've had these modules for a
> while now and you're free to take / use all that you may needed without
> running into request, license, owner, or governance issues. Like you,
> we're hoping to drop these modules in favor of the new Ansible V2 modules
> once released.
>
>
>  This may be a good first convergence point for our projects as
> we're both leveraging Ansible for deployments, we have a similar needs in
> the space, the OSAD code base has been tracking liberty for a while which
> you guys are now working on, and we already have a bunch of modules that we
> use everyday. In terms of support we have an active review to
> add keystone v3 support to our keystone module[1] and while it may not fit
> your current syntax it should be enough to keep things going until we both
> need to refactor some things to leverage all of the coming upstream
> goodness.
>
>  I hope this helps and if you guys are interested in working on any these
> things we'd love help in a collaborative effort.
>
>    --
>
> Kevin Carter
> IRC: cloudnull
>
>   [0]
> https://github.com/stackforge/os-ansible-deployment/tree/master/playbooks/library
> ​
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/196943/
>
>
>
>     ------------------------------
> *From:* Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2015 12:47 PM
> *To:* sam at yaple.net; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)
> *Cc:* Greg DeKoenigsberg
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Plans for using Pre-2.0
> Ansible modules
>
>  That sounds like option #4, so then I guess we don’t need the TC to
> evaluate the “legalness” of this approach since it does not trigger GPL
> contamination.
>
>  TC apologies for the noise – Sam said option #4 was difficult to do :)
>
>  Regards
> -steve
>
>
>   From: Sam Yaple <samuel at yaple.net>
> Reply-To: "sam at yaple.net" <sam at yaple.net>, "OpenStack Development Mailing
> List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 5:15 AM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Cc: Greg DeKoenigsberg <greg at ansible.com>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Plans for using Pre-2.0 Ansible
> modules
>
>   All,
>
> I went ahead and wrote the temp module that will fill the gaps that the
> GPLv3 modules will eventually solve. It appears that upstream Shade still
> doesn't have merge the capability to create roles, even though mordred has
> the reviews up. This means even if we solve the licensing issue, we will
> still be lacking role usage support until shade is updated upstream.
>
>  The review listed below has a 'kolla_keystone.py' module. As well as two
> modules that are licensed ASL2.0 and I have permission from the author to
> use in our repo (there is a link in each module with a git commit
> referencing where they were pulled from with the appropriate license).
>
> https://review.openstack.org/199463
>
>  Sam Yaple
> 864-901-0012
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/7/15, 2:05 PM, "Robert Collins" <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 4 July 2015 at 06:53, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com> wrote:
>> >> Kolla Devs as well as the Technical Committee,
>> >>
>> >> I wanted to get the TC¹s thoughts on this plan of action as we intend
>> to
>> >> apply for big tent once our Ansible code has completed implementation.
>> >>If
>> >> the approach outlined in this email seems like a blocker and we should
>> >>just
>> >> start with #4 instead, it would be immensely helpful to know now.
>> >>
>> >> The problem:
>> >> A whole slew of OpenStack modules exist upstream in the Ansible core
>> >> directory.  Kolla wants to use these modules.  These files are licensed
>> >> under the GPLv3.  They will be released with Ansible 2.0 but Ansible
>> >>2.0 is
>> >> not yet available.  In the meantime we need these modules to execute
>> our
>> >> system.  The repo in question is:
>> >
>> >As I understand our current license situation, you won't be eligible
>> >for big-tent if you depend on GPLv3 code.
>> >
>> >From the requirements "    * Project must have no library dependencies
>> >which effectively restrict
>> >      how the project may be distributed or deployed
>> >"
>> >
>> >So I'm also strongly inclined to recommend you speak to the legal list
>> >about the implications here. Using a GPLv3 tool via the CLI is very
>> >different (by the GPL's design) to using it as a library.
>>
>> Rob,
>>
>> I pinged legal-discuss on this matter.  I am hopeful the experts can
>> provide guidance for the Technical Committee and our project as to how to
>> proceed.
>>
>> Regards
>> -steve
>>
>> >
>> >-Rob
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
>> >Distinguished Technologist
>> >HP Converged Cloud
>> >
>>
>> >__________________________________________________________________________
>> >OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> >Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> 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/20150709/51ea98cf/attachment.html>