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

Michael Chapman woppin at gmail.com
Fri Aug 22 06:30:44 UTC 2014

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 provisioning.
> 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.

(As one of the core reviewers for the Puppet modules)

Without a standardised package build process it's quite difficult to test
trunk Puppet modules vs trunk official projects. This means we cut release
branches some time after the projects themselves to give people a chance to
test. Until this changes and the modules can be released with the same
cadence as the integrated release I believe they should remain on

In addition and perhaps as a consequence, there isn't any public
integration testing at this time for the modules, although I know some
parties have developed and maintain their own.

The Chef modules may be in a different state, but it's hard for me to
recommend the Puppet modules become part of an official program at this

> All the best,
> -jay
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140822/f0264bb8/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list