[openstack-dev] [all] The future of the integrated release

Jay Pipes jaypipes at gmail.com
Thu Aug 21 16:57:10 UTC 2014

On 08/19/2014 11:28 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 20 August 2014 02:37, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> I'd like to see more unification of implementations in TripleO - but I
>>> still believe our basic principle of using OpenStack technologies that
>>> already exist in preference to third party ones is still sound, and
>>> offers substantial dogfood and virtuous circle benefits.
>> No doubt Triple-O serves a valuable dogfood and virtuous cycle purpose.
>> However, I would move that the Deployment Program should welcome the many
>> projects currently in the stackforge/ code namespace that do deployment of
>> OpenStack using traditional configuration management tools like Chef,
>> Puppet, and Ansible. It cannot be argued that these configuration management
>> systems are the de-facto way that OpenStack is deployed outside of HP, and
>> they belong in the Deployment Program, IMO.
> I think you mean it 'can be argued'... ;).

No, I definitely mean "cannot be argued" :) HP is the only company I 
know of that is deploying OpenStack using Triple-O. The vast majority of 
deployers I know of are deploying OpenStack using configuration 
management platforms and various systems or glue code for baremetal 

Note that I am not saying that Triple-O is bad in any way! I'm only 
saying that it does not represent the way that the majority of 
real-world deployments are done.

 > And I'd be happy if folk in
> those communities want to join in the deployment program and have code
> repositories in openstack/. To date, none have asked.

My point in this thread has been and continues to be that by having the 
TC "bless" a certain project as The OpenStack Way of X, that we 
implicitly are saying to other valid alternatives "Sorry, no need to 
apply here.".

>> As a TC member, I would welcome someone from the Chef community proposing
>> the Chef cookbooks for inclusion in the Deployment program, to live under
>> the openstack/ code namespace. Same for the Puppet modules.

While you may personally welcome the Chef community to propose joining 
the deployment Program and living under the openstack/ code namespace, 
I'm just saying that the impression our governance model and policies 
create is one of exclusion, not inclusion. Hope that clarifies better 
what I've been getting at.

All the best,

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list