On 2023/02/28 3:49, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
> ---- On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 19:54:45 -0800 Takashi Kajinami wrote ---
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:38 AM Yasufumi Ogawa yasufum.o@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2023/02/27 10:51, Takashi Kajinami wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:18 AM Ghanshyam Mann gmann@ghanshyammann.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> ---- On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 18:44:14 -0800 Takashi Kajinami wrote ---
> > >> > Hello,
> > >> >
> > >> > Currently tosca-parser is part of heat's governance, but the core
> > >> reviewers of this repositorydoes not contain any active heat cores while we
> > >> see multiple Tacker cores in this group.Considering the fact the project is
> > >> mainly maintained by Tacker cores, I'm wondering if we canmigrate this
> > >> repository to Tacker's governance. Most of the current heat cores are not
> > >> quitefamiliar with the codes in this repository, and if Tacker team is not
> > >> interested in maintainingthis repository then I'd propose retiring this.
> > As you mentioned, tacker still using tosca-parser and heat-translator.
> >
> > >>
> > >> I think it makes sense and I remember its usage/maintenance by the Tacker
> > >> team since starting.
> > >> But let's wait for the Tacker team opinion and accordingly you can propose
> > >> the governance patch.
> > Although I've not joined to tacker team since starting, it might not be
> > true because there was no cores of tosca-parser and heat-translator in
> > tacker team. We've started to help maintenance the projects because no
> > other active contributer.
> >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Similarly, we have heat-translator project which has both heat cores
> > >> and tacker cores as itscore reviewers. IIUC this is tightly related to the
> > >> work in tosca-parser, I'm wondering it makesmore sense to move this project
> > >> to Tacker, because the requirement is mostly made fromTacker side rather
> > >> than Heat side.
> > >>
> > >> I am not sure about this and from the name, it seems like more of a heat
> > >> thing but it is not got beyond the Tosca template
> > >> conversion. Are there no users of it outside of the Tacker service? or any
> > >> request to support more template conversions than
> > >> Tosca?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Current hea-translator supports only the TOSCA template[1].
> > > The heat-translator project can be a generic template converter by its
> > > nature but we haven't seen any interest
> > > in implementing support for different template formats.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://github.com/openstack/heat-translator/blob/master/translator/osc/v1/translate.py#L49
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> If no other user or use case then I think one option can be to merge it
> > >> into Tosca-parser itself and retire heat-translator.
> > >>
> > >> Opinion?
> > Hmm, as a core of tosca-parser, I'm not sure it's a good idea because it
> > is just a parser TOSCA and independent from heat-translator. In
> > addition, there is no experts of Heat or HOT in current tacker team
> > actually, so it might be difficult to maintain heat-translator without
> > any help from heat team.
> >
> > The hea-translator project was initially created to implement a translator from TOSCA parser to HOT[1].Later tosca-parser was split out[2] but we have never increased scope of tosca-parser. So it has beenno more than the TOSCA template translator.
> >
> > [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/heat-translator-tosca[2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/211204
> > We (Heat team) can provide help with any problems with heat, but we own no actual use case of template translation.Maintaining the heat-translator repository with tacker, which currently provides actual use cases would make more sense.This also gives the benefit that Tacker team can decide when stable branches of heat-translator should be retiredalong with the other Tacker repos.
> >
> > By the way, may I ask what will be happened if the governance is move on
> > to tacker? Is there any extra tasks for maintenance?
> >
> > TC would have better (and more precise) explanation but my understanding is that - creating a release
> > - maintaining stable branches
> > - maintaining gate healthwould be the required tasks along with moderating dev discussion in mailing list/PTG/etc.
>
> I think you covered all and the Core team (Tacker members) might be already doing a few of the tasks. From the
> governance perspective, tacker PTL will be the point of contact for this repo in the case repo becomes inactive or so
> but it will be the project team's decision to merge/split things whatever way makes maintenance easy.
I understand. I've shared the proposal again in the previous meeting and
no objection raised. So, we'd agree to move the governance as Tacker team.
Thanks,
Yasufumi
>
> -gmann
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Yasufumi
> >
> > >>
> > >
> > > That also sounds good to me.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Also, correcting the email subject tag as [tc].
> > >>
> > >> -gmann
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > [1]
> > >> https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/1f7855baf3cf14fedf72e443eef18d844bcd43fa,members[2]
> > >> https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/66028971dcbb58add6f0e7c17ac72643c4826956,members
> > >> > Thank you,Takashi
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >