[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Get rid of fuelmenu
mmosesohn at mirantis.com
Thu Jul 23 13:05:42 UTC 2015
How much effort are we spending? I'm not so sure it's a major development drain.
Since Fuel 6.0 dev cycle (Sept 2014) until now there have been 34
commits into Fuelmenu:
* New features/functionality: 12
* Bugfix: 15
* Other: 7 (version bumps, and commits without bug ID)
Across 3 releases, that's only ~11 commits per release. We've added
features like generating random passwords for services, warnings about
setting credentials apart from the default, adding a hook for CI for
testing custom manifests on Fuel Master, and duplicate IP address
These improved user experience. If you take it away and replace it
with a config file with basic validation, we will see users fail to
deploy due to things that Fuelmenu already checks easily. Imagine
you're an existing user of Fuel and suddenly you install the newest
version of Fuel and see a large configuration file which you have to
set by hand. Here's a relic of what users used to have to configure by
Am I alone in thinking it's not the best use of our development
resources to throw it away and replace it with a text file that is
edited by hand?
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnitsky at mirantis.com> wrote:
> Here's my 2 cents on it.
> I think the effort we put to support fuelmenu doesn't worth it. I used
> to deploy fuel too often in previous release, and I never used
> features of fuelmenu? Why? Because I prefer to apply changes on
> already deployed node. Moreover, I don't like that users are prompted
> with fuelmenu by default. I want to deploy fuel automatically, without
> any manual actions (though it's another topic).
> I'm agree with Vladimir, vim + config files are enough, since Fuel is
> not a product for housewives. It's a product for those who do not
> hesitate to use Vim for soft configuration.
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Matthew Mosesohn
> <mmosesohn at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> We had that before and had very poor validation. Removing fuelmenu
>> would make the experience quite manual and prone to errors.
>> This topic comes up once a year only from Fuel Python developers
>> because they rarely use it and no dev cycles have been invested in
>> improving it.
>> The actual Fuel deployers use it and appreciate its validation and
>> wish to extend it.
>> I'd like to hear more feedback.
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov
>> <vkozhukalov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>> What do you think of getting rid of fuelmenu and substituting it with
>>> thoroughly commented text file + some validation + vim? The major pro of
>>> this is that text file is easier to extend and edit. Many people prefer vim
>>> UX instead of wandering through the semi-graphical interface. And it is not
>>> so hard to implement syntax and logic checking for the text file.
>>> Please give your opinions about this.
>>> Vladimir Kozhukalov
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev