[openstack-dev] [tripleo][diskimage-builder] Status of diskimage-builder
lhinds at redhat.com
Mon Mar 6 11:15:55 UTC 2017
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Andre Florath <andre at florath.net> wrote:
> Thanks Greg for sharing your thoughts. The idea of splitting off DIB
> from OpenStack is new for me, therefore I collect some pros and
> Stay in OpenStack:
> + Use available OpenStack infrastructure and methods
> + OpenStack should include a possibility to create images for ironic,
> VMs and docker. (Yes - there are others, but DIB is the best! :-) )
> + Customers use DIB because it's part of OpenStack and for OpenStack
> (see e.g. )
> + Popularity of OpenStack attracts more developers than a separate
> project (IMHO running DIB as a separate project even lowers the low
> number of contributors).
> + 'Short Distances' if there are special needs for OpenStack.
> + Some OpenStack projects use DIB - and also use internal 'knowledge'
> (like build-, run- or test-dependencies) - it would be not that easy
> to completely separate this in short term.
> As a separate project:
> - Possibly less organizational overhead.
> - Independent releases possible.
> - Develop / include / concentrate also for / on other non-OpenStack
> based virtualization platforms (EC2, Google Cloud, ...)
> - Extend the use cases to something like 'DIB can install a wide range
> of Linux distributions on everything you want'.
> Example: DIB Element to install Raspberry Pi  (which is currently
> not the core use-case but shows how flexible DIB is).
> In my opinion the '+' arguments are more important, therefore DIB
> should stay within OpenStack as a sub-project. I don't really care
> about the master: TripleO, Infra, glance, ...
> I want to touch an important point: Greg you are right that there are
> only a very few developers contributing for DIB. One reason
> is IMHO, that it is not very attractive to work on DIB; some examples:
> o The documentation how to set up a DIB development environment 
> is out of date.
> o Testing DIB is nightmare: a developer has no chance to test
> as it is done in the CI (which is currently setup by other OpenStack
> projects?). Round-trip times of ~2h - and then it often fails,
> because of some mirror problem...
> o It takes sometimes very long until a patch is reviewed and merged
> (e.g. still open since 1y1d ; basic refactoring  was filed
> about 9 month ago and still not in the master).
> o There are currently about 100 elements in DIB. Some of them are
> highly hardware dependent; some are known not to work; a lot of them
> need refactoring.
> It is important to work on these topics to make DIB more attractive and
> possible have more contributors. Discussions about automated
> development environment setup  or better developer tests  started
> but need more attention and discussions (and maybe a different setting
> than a patch / review).
> In addition we should concentrate on the core functionalities: block
> device setup, minimal system installation, bootloader, kernel and
> ramdisk creation and a stable extensible element interface; drop
> non-core elements or move them to the projects where they are used.
> Kind regards
>  https://imagefactory.otc.t-systems.com/
>  https://github.com/florath/dib-element-raspberrypi3
>  https://docs.openstack.org/developer/diskimage-builder/
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/419655/
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/414347/
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/287784/
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/319591/
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
Merging into infra sounds pragmatic, especially if a lack of testing / CI
presence is an area that needs improvement. Yolanda from infra has been
very active in DIB as of recent (in terms of CI).
Unless there are strong objections, infra seems a good choice of home to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev