[openstack-dev] [puppet] [fuel] more collaboration request
mmosesohn at mirantis.com
Thu Jun 11 14:36:57 UTC 2015
I can see why you might be unhappy with Fuel's actions with regards to
the OpenStack Puppet modules. You could make this argument about many
components in Fuel. The heart of the matter is that we bundle the
upstream OpenStack Puppet modules with all the other modules,
developed both upstream and by Fuel's developers in one single git
repository. This decision, along with all the other decisions to put
Fuel's components under its own repositories, was intended to add
stability and granular control to the product. I'm not saying it's the
most community-oriented approach, but Fuel would have never evolved
and matured without it. The attribution in commits is lost because our
directory namespace differs such that it can't just be merged cleanly.
Revisiting submodules is an option, but it led to maintenance problems
in the past.
Secondly, I'd like to point out that Fuel is not so different from
what other teams are doing. At the Summit, I heard from others who all
maintain internal Gerrits and internal forks of the modules. The
difference is that Fuel is being worked on in the open in StackForge.
Anyone is free to contribute to Fuel as he or she wishes, take our
patches, or review changesets.
Starting in October 2014, the Fuel team has adopted a policy that we
cannot merge any patches into the core Puppet OpenStack modules of
Fuel without submitting a patch or at least a bug upstream. Our
reviewers block patches consistently. The truth is that the upstream
modules are quite excellent and we don't need to make changes so
often. Our goal is to work with upstream modules or in the issue where
upstream integration is impossible, we place that config in our own
The point you raised about fixing bugs in Fuel and not in Puppet
OpenStack is definitely valid and something we need to collaborate on.
The first and easiest option when a bug is applicable to both, we
could use Launchpad to assign bugs to both Fuel project and
puppet-$project so it gains visibility. If a bug is discovered in
Puppet OpenStack after it's been reported and/or fixed in Fuel, then
it would be best to ping someone in #fuel-dev on IRC and we can try to
figure out how to get this applied upstream correctly. Our best
results come from fixing upstream and I want to make sure that is
If you have specific bugs or commits you'd like to discuss, let's work
them out. I believe I can get the Fuel Library team to agree to do a
walk through all the open bugs in Puppet OpenStack and see if we have
any related fixes or bug reports.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Sanjay Upadhyay <saneax at gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for the thread, I would also like to hear from Mirantis on this.
> The Fork on fuel/puppet has been actively seen patching and consolidation.It
> seems like parallel effort why not merge it.
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Before reading this e-mail, please keep in mind:
>> * I have a lot of admiration for Fuel and since I'm working on OpenStack
>> Installers (at eNovance and now Red Hat), Fuel is something I always
>> consider a good product.
>> * This e-mail is about Fuel and Puppet, nothing about Mirantis.
>> * I'm writing on behalf of my thoughts, and not on our group.
>> * I'm using open mailing-list for open discussion. There is not bad
>> spirit in this e-mail and I want to have a productive thread.
>> I have some concerns I would like to share with you and hopefully find
>> some solutions together.
>> Since I've been working on Puppet OpenStack (2 years now), I see some
>> situations that happen - according to me - too often:
>> * A bug is reported in both Fuel Library and the Puppet module having
>> trouble. A patch is provided in Fuel Library (your fork of Puppet
>> OpenStack modules) but not in Puppet upstream module. That means you fix
>> the bug for Fuel, and not for Puppet OpenStack community. It does not
>> happen all the time but quite often.
>> * A patch is submitted in a Puppet module and quite often does not land
>> because there is no activity, no tests or is abandonned later because
>> fixed in Fuel Library. I've noticed the patch is fixed in Fuel Library
>> * RAW copy/paste between upstream modules code and your forks. In term
>> of Licensing, I'm even not sure you have the right to do that (I'm not a
>> CLA expert though) but well... in term of authorship and statistics on
>> code, I'm not sure it's fair. Using submodules with custom patches would
>> have been great to respect the authors who created the original code and
>> you could have personalize the manifests.
>> Note: you can see that I don't give any example because I'm not here to
>> blame people or judge anyone.
>> So the goal of my e-mail is to open the discussion and have a *real*
>> collaboration between Fuel team which seems to have a lot of good Puppet
>> engineers and Puppet OpenStack team.
>> We had this kind of discussion at the Summit (in Vancouver and also
>> Paris, and even before). Now I would like to officialy know if you are
>> interested or not to be more involved.
>> I'm also open at any feedback about Puppet OpenStack group and if
>> something blocks you to contribute more.
>> We have the same goals, having Puppet modules better. I think it can be
>> win/win: you have less diff with upstream and we have more hands in our
>> module maintenance.
>> Thank you for reading so far, and I'm looking forward to reading from you.
>> Best regards,
>> Emilien Macchi
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> Sanjay Upadhyay
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev