Open Stack

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi James B.,

Thanks for this reply.

As you asked for ACK from all parts, my words will be very much like the
ones of James P. (I've just read his message, and I'm jealous of his
nice native-English wording...:)).

On 06/03/2015 12:41 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
> update from the discussion.

Thanks.

> In general, I think there is a lot of support for a packaging effort in
> OpenStack.  The discussion here has been great; we need to answer a few
> questions, get some decisions written down, and make sure we have
> agreement.
> 
> Here's what we need to know:
> 
> 1) Is this one or more than one horizontal effort?
> 
> In other words, do we think the idea of having a single packaging
> project/team with collaboration among distros is going to work?
>
> Or should we look at it more like the deployment projects where we have
> puppet and chef as top level OpenStack projects?

I don't really know about the puppet project, so I don't know what you
refer to here.

However, talking with James Page (from Canonical, head of their server
team which does the OpenStack packaging), we believe it's best if we had
2 different distinct teams: one for Fedora/SuSe/everything-rpm, and one
for Debian based distribution.

We could try to work as a single entity (RPM + deb teams), but rpm+yum
and dpkg+apt are 2 distinct worlds which have very few common
attributes. So even if it may socially be nice, it's not the right
technical decision.

At least, during the summit, what we agreed on is that we don't want
Debian/Ubuntu guys having the rights to core-review RPM packaging and
vice-versa. So the core reviewer lists will have to be separated. The
list of repositories will also have to be split, because repositories
must match package names, and we have different naming (and even naming
policies). Plus the ACLs will be better managed on a per-repo basis than
on a per-branch one.

It would also maybe make sense to have separate PTLs too (though we're
open to other views, if it's easier to have a single one for the rest of
the community).

> Either way is fine, and regardless, we need to answer the next
> questions:
> 
> 2) What's the collaboration plan?
> 
> How will different distros collaborate with each other, if at all?  What
> things are important to standardize on, what aren't and how do we
> support them all.

I can answer only for the Debian/Ubuntu part, and I'll let the RPM world
guys reply from themselves

First, we already worked together between Debian and Ubuntu. All of Juno
in Ubuntu was using Python packages I worked on (in fact, all of
OpenStack but the core packages). We have the intention to at least
merge all of our efforts on everything but the core packages first, then
see on case by case basis how we can merge all packaging for the more
complex packages. Nova and Neutron packages have unfortunately diverged
over the years, so we have to be extra careful on how this is
technically going to happen, without breaking any distro. But I'm
confident we'll succeed.

What sparked this, is that during the summit, Mark Shuttleworth told me
he was supportive of more collaboration between Debian & Ubuntu. Just 5
minutes after his words, I (very fortunately) bumped into James Page,
and we decided to push everything to /stackforge, then try to merge all
of our source packages.

Then, when discussing the mater with others, I heard sentences like "you
should push this into the /openstack namespace to make it more
big-tent-ish", on which I agree.

So there is at least a strong will to maintain OpenStack packages for
Debian and Ubuntu collectively. This means it would be both James Page
team (for Canonical) and myself (working in Debian). I hope to push
everyone else in Mirantis who works on MOS to also do packaging on
upstream Gerrit, at least for the Debian/Ubuntu part. So that is 3
OpenStack distributions that will work as one.

Also, I have to say that the merging effort between Debian and Ubuntu
has already started.

> 3) What are the plans for repositories and their contents?
> 
> What repos will be created, and what will be in them.  When will new
> ones be created, and is there any process around that.

Currently, OpenStack in Debian represents 237 packages, which are all
listed there:
https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=openstack-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org

Some of the more generic ones will be moved to do package maintenance
under the DPMT (Debian Python Module Team). I'm thinking for example
about python-nose-parametrized, python-nose-timer, python-termcolor,
python-termstyle, python-rednose, python-jingo, python-couleur,
python-croniter, python-nosehtmloutput, python-nose-exclude,
python-mockito... This kind of packages.

That's maybe 20 to 30 packages to move there. However, I am waiting for
the DPMT to finish its migration from SVN to Git, as I don't really want
to jump 20 years in the past. These packages can stay under the Debian
OpenStack package group on alioth.debian.org in the mean while (James
Page already contributes to this git repository collection).

All of the other Git repositories, with anyone OpenStack upstream, will
move to upstream Gerrit. So, all of python-*client, python-oslo.*,
python-xstatic-*, python-migrate, etc. I haven't yet counted how many
repositories that represent, but that's a lot. Maybe between 150 to 200,
and of course, growing as we constantly add new packages.

We would like to prefix all Debian packaging Git repository with "deb-".

> 4) Who is on the team(s)?
> 
> Who is interested in the overall effort?  Who is signing up for
> distro-specific work?

As a start, and for the Debian+Ubuntu part, there's going to be James
Page, Chuck Short and myself as a start as core contributors with
special ACLs. Then we will see, with time, who to add as core. Maybe
Corey Bryant (also working on packaging at Canonical).

Then I hope more people Mirantis guys will soon get involved as well.

But also, what drives this initiative is to have the operation guys to
have a say as well. So we hope that experienced package maintainers will
be able to review their proposals which will be more than welcome.

> Who will be the initial PTL?

James Page and myself agreed that I would be the PTL for this Liberty
cycle. We also agree to change PTL on each cycle (as we both believe
it's a big overhead which we would like to share).

> I think if the discussion here can answer those questions, you should
> update the governance repo change with that information

Done for the PTL part. Is there anything else I should change? The list
of repo can't be written right away. But can I write openstack/deb-* ?

> we can get all
> the participants to ack that, and the TC will be able to act.

We have Debian + Ubuntu doing the ACK already. :)

> Thanks again for driving this.

Thanks a lot for your support.

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=dThV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----