Open Stack

On 29/10/14 15:30 +0100, Philip Cheong wrote:
>Yes, the aim is to get a vagrant-openstack provider plugin under Hashicorp's or
>Mitchellh's github account. Whether you call that "official" or "blessed",
>doesn't really matter.
>
>In order for Vagrant to integrate with other tools such as Packer there needs
>to be a preferred plugin. Hopefully the owners of the other plugins will agree
>to deprecate theirs so that an end can be put to the fragmentation that has
>happened so far and direct contributors to the correct place. 

FWIW, I'm happy to deprecate mine!

Flavio

>
>
>On 29 October 2014 10:04, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>    On 28/10/14 21:23 +0100, Philip Cheong wrote:
>
>        Hi all,
>
>        In preparation of the OpenStack Summit in Paris next week, I'm hoping
>        to speak
>        to some people in the OpenStack foundation about the benefits of a
>        partnership
>        with Hashicorp, who make fantastic tools like Vagrant and Packer (and
>        others).
>
>        As a n00b aspiring to become an OpenStack contributor, the variety of
>        Vagrant
>        devstack environments is pretty overwhelming. It appears to me that it
>        really
>        depends on what project you are contributing to, which denotes which
>        devstack
>        you should use. The ones I have tried take a long time (45 mins+) to
>        provision
>        from scratch. 
>
>        One aspect which I am acutely aware of is developer productivity and 45
>        minutes
>        is a lot of time. Packer was designed to help alleviate bottleneck, and
>        Vagrantcloud has inbuilt support for the versioning of Vagrant boxes.
>        It would
>        be a pretty straight forward exercise to use Packer to do a daily (or
>        however
>        often) build of a devstack box and upload it to Vagrantcloud for
>        developers to
>        download. With a decent internet connection that time would be
>        significantly
>        less than 45 minutes.
>
>        I would really like to think that this community should also be able to
>        come to
>        a consensus over what to include in a "standard" devstack. That there
>        currently
>        seems to be many different flavours cannot help with issues of
>        fragmentation
>        between so many different moving parts to build an OpenStack
>        environment.
>
>        Another big issue that I hope to address with the foundation, is the
>        integration of Hashicorp's tools with OpenStack. 
>
>        The various Vagrant plugins to add OpenStack as a provider is a mess.
>        There is
>        one specific for Rackspace who have a different Keystone API, and at
>        least 3
>        others for the vanilla OpenStack:
>        https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant-rackspace
>        https://github.com/ggiamarchi/vagrant-openstack-provider
>        https://github.com/cloudbau/vagrant-openstack-plugin
>        https://github.com/FlaPer87/vagrant-openstack
>
>
>    I'm pretty sure mine doesn't even work any more, I don't even know
>    ruby ;)
>
>    I do see a value in having a vagrant-openstack provider but I don't
>    think we should pick one and mark it as blessed. We're trying very
>    hard to move away from 'blessing' projecs, at the very least depend
>    less on it.
>
>    Anyone should feel free to create the provider on stackforge and
>    maintain it. What would be even better is to have Hashicorp itself
>    creating and maintaining this provider.
>
>    Cheers,
>    Flavio
>
>
>
>        The significance of not having an "official" provider, for one example,
>        is when
>        you use Packer to build an image in OpenStack and try to post-process
>        it into a
>        Vagrant box, it bombs with this error:
>
>
>           ==> openstack: Running post-processor: vagrant
>           Build 'openstack' errored: 1 error(s) occurred:
>
>           * Post-processor failed: Unknown artifact type, can't build box:
>           mitchellh.openstack
>
>
>        Because Packer doesn't know what Vagrant expects the provider to be, as
>        explained here.
>
>        In my opinion this a pretty big issue holding back the wider acceptance
>        of
>        OpenStack. When I am at a customer and introduce them to tools like
>        Vagrant and
>        Packer and how well they work with AWS, I still avoid the conversation
>        about
>        OpenStack when I would really love to put them on our (Elastx's) public
>        cloud.
>
>        What say you? Could I get a +1 from those who see this as a worthwhile
>        issue?
>
>        Cheers,
>
>        Phil.
>        --
>        Philip Cheong
>        Elastx | Public and Private PaaS
>        email: philip.cheong at elastx.se
>        office: +46 8 557 728 10
>        mobile: +46 702 870 814
>        twitter: @Elastx
>        http://elastx.se
>
>
>        _______________________________________________
>        OpenStack-dev mailing list
>        OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>        http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>   
>   
>
>    --
>    @flaper87
>    Flavio Percoco
>   
>    _______________________________________________
>    OpenStack-dev mailing list
>    OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>    http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Philip Cheong
>Elastx | Public and Private PaaS
>email: philip.cheong at elastx.se
>office: +46 8 557 728 10
>mobile: +46 702 870 814
>twitter: @Elastx
>http://elastx.se

>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141029/e65e68a8/attachment.pgp>