[Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [SIGS] Ops Tools SIG

Matthias Runge mrunge at redhat.com
Mon Oct 15 09:11:09 UTC 2018


On 12/10/2018 14:21, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:25:20AM +0200, Martin Magr wrote:
>> Greetings guys,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
>> majopela at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Adding the mailing lists back to your reply, thank you :)
>>>
>>> I guess that +melvin.hillsman at huawei.com <melvin.hillsman at huawei.com> can
>>> help us a little bit organizing the SIG,
>>> but I guess the first thing would be collecting a list of tools which
>>> could be published
>>> under the umbrella of the SIG, starting by the ones already in Osops.
>>>
>>> Publishing documentation for those tools, and the catalog under
>>> docs.openstack.org
>>> is possibly the next step (or a parallel step).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 4:43 PM Rob McAllister <lawnboy11 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Miguel,
>>>>
>>>> I would love to join this. What do I need to do?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 9, 2018, at 03:17, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <majopela at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>>      Yesterday, during the Oslo meeting we discussed [6] the possibility
>>>> of creating a new Special Interest Group [1][2] to provide home and release
>>>> means for operator related tools [3] [4] [5]
>>>>
>>>>
>>    all of those tools have python dependencies related to openstack such as
>> python-openstackclient or python-pbr. Which is exactly the reason why we
>> moved osops-tools-monitoring-oschecks packaging away from OpsTools SIG to
>> Cloud SIG. AFAIR we had some issues of having opstools SIG being dependent
>> on openstack SIG. I believe that Cloud SIG is proper home for tools like
>> [3][4][5] as they are related to OpenStack anyway. OpsTools SIG contains
>> general tools like fluentd, sensu, collectd.
>>
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Martin
>>
> 
> Hey Martin,
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the issue with these tools have dependencies on other
> packages and the relationship to SIG ownership. Is your concern (or the history
> of a concern you are pointing out) that the tools would have a more difficult
> time if they required updates to dependencies if they are owned by a different
> group?
> 
> Thanks!
> Sean
> 

Hello,

the mentioned sigs (opstools/cloud) are in CentOS scope and mention 
repository dependencies. That shouldn't bother us here now.


There is already a SIG under the CentOS project, providing tools for 
operators[7], but also documentation and integrational bits.

Also, there is some overlap with other groups and SIGs, such as 
Barometer[8].

Since there is already some duplication, I don't know where it makes 
sense to have a single group for this purpose?

If that hasn't been clear yet, I'd be absolutely interested in 
joining/helping this effort.


Matthias



[7] https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/OpsTools
[8] https://wiki.opnfv.org/collector/pages.action?key=fastpath

-- 
Matthias Runge <mrunge at redhat.com>

Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
                     Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander



More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list