Open Stack

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:18 AM Bogdan Dobrelya <bdobreli at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 06.04.2020 09:51, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:48 AM Lingxian Kong <anlin.kong at gmail.com
> > <mailto:anlin.kong at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     I see we are talking about another "Gnocchi", when Gnocchi moved out
> of
> >     OpenStack, people said they could run Gnocchi in standalone mode
> without
> >     installing the other OpenStack services, then they changed default
> >     dependency of some other projects (Ceilometer, Panko, etc) to
> Gnocchi.
> >     As a result, they are all dead (or almost dead).
> >
> >
> > I'd be very careful comparing Ironic to Gnocchi/Telemetry. I think the
> > fate that Telemetry met was largely due to staffing problems, more
> > specifically, all large contributors pulling away from it. It would end
> > up the same inside or outside of OpenStack.
> >
> >
> >     Another example is a long time ago in one OpenStack project, there
> was a
> >     demand for secret management, people said, Barbican is not mature and
> >     not production ready yet, we shouldn't dependent on Barbican but
> could
> >     make it optional, as a result, Barbican never adopted in the project
> in
> >     real deployment.
> >
> >
> > I don't know much about the Barbican situation, but there may be other
> > explanations. Some operators are against deploying any new service
> > unless absolutely necessary, because any new service is a maintenance
> > burden.
> >
> > At the Denver PTG we were talking about non-Keystone authentication in
> > Ironic. Keystone is arguably very trivial to install, and still it meets
> > some resistance.
> >
> >
> >     I have been involved in OpenStack community since 2013, I see people
> >     came and left, I see projects created and died, until now, there are
> >     only a few of projects alive and actively maintained. IMHO, as a
> >     community, we should try our best to integrate projects with each
> other,
> >     no project can live well without some others help， projects rarely
> >     stand or fall alone.
> >
> >
> > To be clear, my proposal does not affect this. Specifically:
> > 1) I don't suggest reducing the number of integration points.
>
> But having *more* integration points and functional duplication, like
> internal project's authorization, coordination (placement/messaging),
> shared libraries, indirectly reduce the integration points in OpenStack
> and pulls off contributors by spreading its focus on that otherwise
> would have been shipped and maintained "out of box" (or out of big
> tent). Not ranting, I understand that it is pointless to complain
> against inevitability.
>

On the other hand, not having some of these prevents adoption (for example,
the requirement of RabbitMQ has been a huge deal for standalone adoption
and was considered a blocker for metal3).

Dmitry


>
> > 2) Integration points with OpenStack services are already optional in
> > Ironic.
> >
> > What exactly is your concern? Ironic dropping integration points
> > altogether? We don't plan on that.
> >
> > Dmitry
> >
> >
> >     Well, I'm not part of TC, I'm not the person or team can decide how
> >     Ironic project goes in this situation. But as a developer who is
> trying
> >     very hard to maintain several OpenStack projects, that what I'm
> >     thinking.
> >
> >     My 0.02.
> >
> >     -
> >     Best regards,
> >     Lingxian Kong
> >     Catalyst Cloud
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Bogdan Dobrelya,
> Irc #bogdando
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200406/4ad69148/attachment.html>