[openstack-dev] [puppet] [fuel] more collaboration request

Sanjay Upadhyay saneax at gmail.com
Thu Jun 11 11:34:29 UTC 2015

+1 for the thread, I would also like to hear from Mirantis on this.

The Fork on fuel/puppet has been actively seen patching and
consolidation.It seems like parallel effort why not merge it.


On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> Before reading this e-mail, please keep in mind:
> * I have a lot of admiration for Fuel and since I'm working on OpenStack
> Installers (at eNovance and now Red Hat), Fuel is something I always
> consider a good product.
> * This e-mail is about Fuel and Puppet, nothing about Mirantis.
> * I'm writing on behalf of my thoughts, and not on our group.
> * I'm using open mailing-list for open discussion. There is not bad
> spirit in this e-mail and I want to have a productive thread.
> I have some concerns I would like to share with you and hopefully find
> some solutions together.
> Since I've been working on Puppet OpenStack (2 years now), I see some
> situations that happen - according to me - too often:
> * A bug is reported in both Fuel Library and the Puppet module having
> trouble. A patch is provided in Fuel Library (your fork of Puppet
> OpenStack modules) but not in Puppet upstream module. That means you fix
> the bug for Fuel, and not for Puppet OpenStack community. It does not
> happen all the time but quite often.
> * A patch is submitted in a Puppet module and quite often does not land
> because there is no activity, no tests or is abandonned later because
> fixed in Fuel Library. I've noticed the patch is fixed in Fuel Library
> though.
> * RAW copy/paste between upstream modules code and your forks. In term
> of Licensing, I'm even not sure you have the right to do that (I'm not a
> CLA expert though) but well... in term of authorship and statistics on
> code, I'm not sure it's fair. Using submodules with custom patches would
> have been great to respect the authors who created the original code and
> you could have personalize the manifests.
> Note: you can see that I don't give any example because I'm not here to
> blame people or judge anyone.
> So the goal of my e-mail is to open the discussion and have a *real*
> collaboration between Fuel team which seems to have a lot of good Puppet
> engineers and Puppet OpenStack team.
> We had this kind of discussion at the Summit (in Vancouver and also
> Paris, and even before). Now I would like to officialy know if you are
> interested or not to be more involved.
> I'm also open at any feedback about Puppet OpenStack group and if
> something blocks you to contribute more.
> We have the same goals, having Puppet modules better. I think it can be
> win/win: you have less diff with upstream and we have more hands in our
> module maintenance.
> Thank you for reading so far, and I'm looking forward to reading from you.
> Best regards,
> --
> Emilien Macchi
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

Sanjay Upadhyay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150611/01263a69/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list