[openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

Steven Dake (stdake) stdake at cisco.com
Sun May 1 22:28:29 UTC 2016

From: Michał Jastrzębski <inc007 at gmail.com<mailto:inc007 at gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:24 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

While I'm not on this list, I'll speak up anyways:) on summit we agreed that we start from separate repo, and after kolla-k8s becomes stable, we either merge or not merge.

I'm for separate repo.

Keep in mind if we start with a seprate repo we cannot merge it into the main kolla repo without losing git history and it suffers from all the various problems of a separate repo.  But also core's are welcome to chime in.


On May 1, 2016 4:06 PM, "Steven Dake (stdake)" <stdake at cisco.com<mailto:stdake at cisco.com>> wrote:
Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate repository.

I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that list approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I heard were:

  *   Better integration of the community
  *   Better integration of the code base
  *   Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened during kolla-mesos
  *   A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology
  *   Two gating methods versus one
  *   No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history

I favor of the separate repositories I heard

  *   It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
  *   Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not be deleted

There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed to communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is the time for fixing that.

I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want to work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems above.

If you are on this list:

  *   Ryan Hallisey
  *   Britt Houser

  *   mark casey

  *   Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)

  *   Michael Schmidt

  *   Marian Schwarz

  *   Andrew Battye

  *   Kevin Fox (kfox1111)

  *   Sidharth Surana (ssurana)

  *    Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)

  *     Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)

  *     MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)

  *     Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)

  *     Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)

  *     Martin Andre (mandre)

  *     Ian Main (Slower)

  *   Hui Kang (huikang)

  *   Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)

  *   Alex Polvi (polvi)

  *   Rob Mason

  *   Alicja Kwasniewska

  *   sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)

  *   Keith Byrne (kbyrne)

  *   Zdenek Janda (xdeu)

  *   Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)

  *   Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
  *   Jinay Vora
  *   Hui Kang
  *   Davanum Srinivas

Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified repository.

The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.

Thank you

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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160501/747ab878/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list