Open Stack

On 01/24/2016 03:02 AM, Matthew Mosesohn wrote:
> I would personally like to see Keystone get transitioned first, but it
> really doesn't matter where we start if we reach the right goal in the
> end. Since Emelien's work on refactoring all the providers for
> puppet-keystone, it has become a test bed for project-wide features. I'm
> really excited to see consistency in oslo config across services, so
> keep up the good work!

I also think puppet-keystone would be a good place to start.
We have our Puppet Sprint [1] right now, maybe we could start working on it?

Let us know if you can participate or when do you plan to continue the
work on puppet-oslo; we can also provide any help that is needed.

Thanks,

[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/puppet-happy-new-year-2016

> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Xingchao Yu <yuxcer at gmail.com
> <mailto:yuxcer at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi, all:
> 
>         I spend some times to collect oslo.* versions of openstack
>     projects(which has related puppet module), please check it in
>     following table:
> 
>         https://github.com/openstack/puppet-oslo#module-description
> 
>         From the table, we can find most of oslo.* libraries are the
>     same among the openstack projects(except aodh, gnocchi).
> 
>         So from the table, we could use puppet-oslo to replace
>     configuration of oslo.* in related modules gradually.
> 
>         Thanks & Regards.
> 
> 
>     2016-01-21 23:58 GMT+08:00 Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com
>     <mailto:emilien at redhat.com>>:
> 
> 
> 
>         On 01/21/2016 08:15 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>         > Excerpts from Cody Herriges's message of 2016-01-19 15:50:05
>         -0800:
>         >> Colleen Murphy wrote:
>         >>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Xingchao Yu
>         <yuxcer at gmail.com <mailto:yuxcer at gmail.com>
>         >>> <mailto:yuxcer at gmail.com <mailto:yuxcer at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>         >>>
>         >>>     Hi, Emilien:
>         >>>
>         >>>          Thanks for your efforts on this topic, I didn't
>         attend V
>         >>>     release summit and missed related discussion about
>         puppet-oslo.
>         >>>
>         >>>          As the reason for not using a unified way to manage
>         oslo_*
>         >>>     parameters is there maybe exist different oslo_* version
>         between
>         >>>     openstack projects.
>         >>>
>         >>>          I have an idea to solve this potential problem,we
>         can maintain
>         >>>     several versions of puppet-oslo, each module can map to
>         different
>         >>>     version of puppet-oslo.
>         >>>
>         >>>         It would be something like follows: (the map info is
>         not true,
>         >>>     just for example)
>         >>>
>         >>>         In Mitaka release
>         >>>         puppet-nova maps to puppet-oslo with 8.0.0
>         >>>         puppet-designate maps to puppet-oslo with 7.0.0
>         >>>         puppet-murano maps to puppet-oslo with 6.0.0
>         >>>
>         >>>         In Newton release
>         >>>         puppet-nova maps to puppet-oslo with 9.0.0
>         >>>         puppet-designate maps to puppet-oslo with 9.0.0
>         >>>         puppet-murano maps to puppet-oslo with 7.0.0
>         >>>
>         >>> For the simplest case of puppet infrastructure
>         configuration, which is a
>         >>> single puppetmaster with one environment, you cannot have
>         multiple
>         >>> versions of a single puppet module installed. This means you
>         absolutely
>         >>> cannot have an openstack infrastructure depend on having
>         different
>         >>> versions of a single module installed. In your example, a
>         user would not
>         >>>  be able to use both puppet-nova and puppet-designate since
>         they are
>         >>> using different versions of the puppet-oslo module.
>         >>>
>         >>> When we put out puppet modules, we guarantee that version
>         X.x.x of a
>         >>> given module works with the same version of every other
>         module, and this
>         >>> proposal would totally break that guarantee.
>         >>>
>         >>
>         >> How does OpenStack solve this issue?
>         >>
>         >> * Do they literally install several different versions of the
>         same
>         >> python library?
>         >> * Does every project vendor oslo?
>         >> * Is the oslo library its self API compatible with older
>         versions?
>         >
>         > Each Oslo library has its own version. Only one version of each
>         > library is installed at a time. We use the global requirements
>         list
>         > to sync compatible requirements specifications across all
>         OpenStack
>         > projects to make them co-installable. And we try hard to maintain
>         > API compatibility, using SemVer versioning to indicate when that
>         > was not possible.
>         >
>         > If you want to have a single puppet module install all of the Oslo
>         > libraries, you could pull the right versions from the
>         upper-constraints.txt
>         > file in the openstack/requirements repository. That file lists the
>         > versions that were actually tested in the gate.
> 
>         Thanks for this feedback Doug!
>         So I propose we create the module in openstack namespace, please
>         vote for:
>         https://review.openstack.org/#/c/270872/
> 
>         I talked with xingchao on IRC #puppet-openstack and he's doing
>         project-config patch today.
>         Maybe could we start with Nova, Neutron, Cinder, Glance,
>         Keystone, see
>         how it works and iterate later with other modules.
> 
>         Thoughts are welcome,
>         --
>         Emilien Macchi
> 
> 
>         __________________________________________________________________________
>         OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>         Unsubscribe:
>         OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>         <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Xingchao Yu
> 
> 
> 
>     __________________________________________________________________________
>     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>     Unsubscribe:
>     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@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
> 

-- 
Emilien Macchi

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160125/3fd11e28/attachment.pgp>