Open Stack

>From my point of view, i've been using that either on infra with
puppet-infracloud, glean.. and now with TripleO. So in my opinion, it shall
be an independent project, with core contributors from both sides.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Paul Belanger <pabelanger at redhat.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:11:42PM -0500, James Slagle wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Paul Belanger <pabelanger at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > >> Greetings,
> > >>
> > >> With the containerization[1] of tripleo, I'd like to know more about
> the future of
> > >> diskimage-builder as it relates to the tripleo project.
> > >>
> > >> Reading the recently approved spec for containers, container (image)
> builds are
> > >> no longer under the control of tripleo; by kolla. Where does this
> leave
> > >> diskimage-builder as a project under tripleo?  I specifically ask,
> because I'm
> > >> wanting to start down the path of using diskimage-builder as an
> interface to
> > >> containers.
> > >>
> > >> Basically, is it time to move diskimage-builder out from the tripleo
> project
> > >> into another, or its own? Or is tripleo wanting to more forward on
> development
> > >> efforts on diskimage-builder.
> > >
> > > Looking at stats on who is actively contributing into DIB:
> > > http://stackalytics.com/?module=diskimage-builder
> > >
> > > It seems that we have some folks from infra and some folks on dib
> > > only, and a few contributors from TripleO.
> > >
> > > I guess the best option is to ask DIB contributors: do you want to own
> > > the project you're committing to?
> > > If not, is it something that should stay in TripleO (imo no) or move
> > > into openstack-infra (imo yes, if infra agrees).
> > >
> > > With my PTL hat, I'm really open to this thing and I wouldn't mind to
> > > transfer ownership to another group.
> >
> > I was under the impression it was already it's own project team based on:
> > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-July/099805.html
> >
> > It looks like the change was never made in governance however.
> >
> Yes, it just looks like Greg created new core reviewers, not officially
> breaking
> away from tripleo.
>
> If everybody is on board with moving diskimage-builder outside of tripleo,
> we
> need to decided where it lives. Two options come to mind:
>
> 1) Move diskimage-builder into own (big tent?) project. Setup a new PTL,
> etc.
> 2) Move diskimage-builder into openstack-infra (fungi PTL).
> 3) Keep diskimage-builder under tripleo (EmilienM PTL).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> > The reason I -1'd Paul's TripleO spec and suggested it be proposed to
> > diskimage-builder was due to:
> > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-June/098560.html
> and
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/336109/
> >
> > I just want to make sure the right set of reviewers who are driving
> > dib development see the spec proposal.
> >
> > --
> > -- James Slagle
> > --
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> ______________
> > 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
>



-- 
Yolanda Robla Mota
NFV Partner Engineer
yroblamo at redhat.com
+34 605641639
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170112/99bac394/attachment.html>