Open Stack

Hello,

I pretty much agree with Evgeniya here. Keeping everything (code, docs,
specs and tests) in the same repo is essential to keep up-to-date
information. Otherwise chances are that it will diverge eventually.
See other comments inline.

BR,

Simon

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Evgeniya Shumakher <eshumakher at mirantis.com
> wrote:

> Folks -
>
> I support the idea to keep plugins' code and other artifacts, e.g. design
> specs, installation and user guides, test scripts, test plan, test report,
> etc, in one repo, just to create dedicated folders for that.
> My argument here is pretty simple, i consider a Fuel plugin as a separate
> and independent project, which should be stored in a dedicated repo and
> maintained by the plugin development team.
>
> But i don't see why we can't use Fuel Launchpad [1] to create blueprints
> if we think it's necessary, but a BP itself shouldn't be a 'must do' for
> those who are working on Fuel plugins.
>
> And couple more comments:
>
>    1. Have a separate stackforge repo per Fuel plugin in format
>    "fuel-plugin-<name>", with separate core-reviewers group which should have
>    plugin contributor initially
>
> On stackforge.
> Right now there are 4 Fuel plugins developed (GlusterFS, NetApp, LBaaS,
> VPNaaS) and 4 more are coming (NFS, FWaaS, Contrail, EMC VNX). Keeping in
> mind that the number of Fuel plugins will grow, does it make sense to keep
> them in stackforge?
> Mike, Alexander, we discussed an option to keep everything in fuel-infra
> [3].
> I would like to hear what other folks think about that.
>

Sounds like a good idea to use Fuel infra. From my recent experience, the
Fuel plugin framework is easy to work with and there will probably be many
plugins adding to the list. Asking for a new repository or for access right
modifications is going to be put a burden on the OpenStack infra team if it
happens too often.


>
> On the repo name.
> I would suggest to add the name of OpenStack component the plugin works
> with also "fuel-plugin-<component>-<name>", e.g.
> fuel-plugin-cinder-emc-vnx.
>

Ok for plugins that deal with specific OpenStack services but this might
not be true for all plugins.


>
>    1. Have docs folder in the plugin, and ability to build docs out of it
>       - do we want Sphinx or simple Github docs format is Ok? So people
>       can just go to github/stackforge to see docs
>
> I agree with Evgeniy. We are talking about best practices of Fuel plugin
> development. I would prefer to keep them as simple and as easy as possible.
>

Definitely +1.

>
>    1. Have specification in the plugin repo
>       - also, do we need Sphinx here?
>
>
>    1. Have plugins tests in the repo
>
> So, here is how the plugin repo structure could look like:
>
>    - fuel-plugin-<component>-<name>
>    - specs
>       - plugin
>       - tests
>       - docs
>       - utils
>
> Alexander -
>
> I don't think that putting these specs [4, 5] to fuel-specs [6] is a good
> idea.
> Let's come to an agreement, so plugin developers will know where they
> should commit code,specs and other docs.
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
> Thanks.
>
>
> [1] https://launchpad.net/fuel
> [2] https://github.com/stackforge
> [3] https://review.fuel-infra.org/
> [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129586/
> [5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/148475/4
> [6] https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-specs
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Alexander Ignatov <aignatov at mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>>
>> I also wanted to add that there is a PR already on adding plugins
>> repos to stackforge: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147169/
>>
>> All this looks good, but it’s not clear when this patch will be merged
>> and repos are created.
>> So the question is what should we do with the current spec made in
>> fuel-specs[1,2] which are targeted for plugins?
>> And how will look development process for plugins added to 6.1 roadmap?
>> Especially for plugins came not from external vendors and partners. Will
>> we create separate projects on the Launchpad and duplicate our
>> For now I’m not sure if we need to wait for new infrastructure created in
>> stackforge/launchpad for each plugin and follow the common
>> procedure to land current plugins to existing repos during 6.1 milestone.
>>
>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129586/
>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/148475/4
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alexander Ignatov
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 Jan 2015, at 12:43, Nikolay Markov <nmarkov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>> I also wanted to add that there is a PR already on adding plugins
>> repos to stackforge: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147169/
>>
>> There is a battle in comments right now, because some people are not
>> agree that so many repos are needed.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Mike Scherbakov
>> <mscherbakov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Fuelers,
>> we've implemented pluggable architecture piece in 6.0, and got a number of
>> plugins already. Overall development process for plugins is still not
>> fully
>> defined.
>> We initially thought that having all the plugins in one repo on stackforge
>> is Ok, we also put some docs into existing fuel-docs repo, and specs to
>> fuel-specs.
>>
>> We might need a change here. Plugins are not tight to any particular
>> release
>> date, and they can also be separated each from other in terms of
>> committers
>> and core reviewers. Also, it seems to be pretty natural to keep all docs
>> and
>> design specs associated with particular plugin.
>>
>> With all said, following best dev practices, it is suggested to:
>>
>> Have a separate stackforge repo per Fuel plugin in format
>> "fuel-plugin-<name>", with separate core-reviewers group which should have
>> plugin contributor initially
>> Have docs folder in the plugin, and ability to build docs out of it
>>
>> do we want Sphinx or simple Github docs format is Ok? So people can just
>> go
>> to github/stackforge to see docs
>>
>> Have specification in the plugin repo
>>
>> also, do we need Sphinx here?
>>
>> Have plugins tests in the repo
>>
>> Ideas / suggestions / comments?
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Mike Scherbakov
>> #mihgen
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org
>> ?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Nick Markov
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org
>> ?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Evgeniya Shumakher
> Partner Integrations Manager
> Mirantis, Inc
>
> Mob.phone: +7 (968) 760-98-42
> Email: eshumakher at mirantis.com
> Skype: eshumakher
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 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/20150126/66d9f9de/attachment.html>