Open Stack

On 06/15/2015 10:43 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
> On 06/15/2015 03:03 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
>> On 06/15/2015 11:48 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> On 06/15/2015 04:55 PM, James Page wrote:
>>>> The problem of managing delta and allowing a good level of
>>>> distribution independence is still going to continue to exist and will
>>>> be more difficult to manage due to the tighter coupling of development
>>>> process and teams than we have today.
>>>>
>>>> On this basis, we're -1 on taking this proposal forward.
>>>>
>>>> That said, we do appreciate that the Ubuntu packaging for OpenStack is
>>>> not as accessible as it might be using Bazaar as a VCS. In order to
>>>> provide a more familiar experience to developers and operators looking
>>>> to contribute to the wider Openstack ecosystem we will be moving our
>>>> OpenStack packaging branches over to the new Git support in Launchpad
>>>> in the next few weeks.
>> [...]
>>> During our discussions at the Summit, you seemed to be enthusiastic
>>> about pushing our packaging to Stackforge. Then others told me to "push
>>> it to the /openstack namespace" to make it "more big tent-ish", which
>>> made me very excited about the idea.
>>>
>>> So far, I've been very happy of the reboot of our collaboration, and
>>> felt like it was just awesome new atmosphere. So I have to admit I'm a
>>> bit disappointed to read the above, even though I do understand the
>>> reasoning.
>>
>> James is right. This discussion thread put a lot of faith in the
>> possibility that moving packaging efforts under the OpenStack umbrella
>> would magically solve our key blocking issues. (I'm guilty of it as much
>> as anyone else.) But really, we the collaborators are the ones who have
>> to solve those blocking issues, and we'll have to do it together, no
>> matter what banner we do it under.
>>
>>> Anyway, does this mean that you don't want to push packaging to
>>> /stackforge either, which was the idea we shared at the summit?
>>>
>>> I'm a bit lost on what I should do now, as what was exciting was
>>> enabling operation people to contribute. I'll think about it and see
>>> what to do next.
>>
>> It doesn't really matter where the repos are located, we can still
>> collaborate. Just moving Ubuntu's openstack repos to git and the Debian
>> Python Modules Team repos to git will be a massive step forward.
>>
> While I agree those points are valid, and going to be helpful, moving
> under OpenStack (even Stackforge) does also offer the chance to get more
> test integration upstream (not saying this was the original scope).
> However, this could also be achieved by 3rd party integration too.
> 
> I'm still driving forward with some -infra specific packaging for Debian
> / Fedora ATM (zuul packaging). Mostly because of -infra needs for
> packages. Not saying that is a reason to reconsider, but there is the
> need for -infra to consume packages from upstream.
> 
> Thomas where does this leave you (Debian). Are you still considering the
> move to upstream?

Hi Paul,

FYI, I tried packaging Zuul and Nodepool for Debian, and saw the work
which has been done packaging it for -infra. I do plan to contribute to
that soon (as I have already some changes done). So I will at least help
for this.

As for moving packages to stackforge, I hope to start this effort, yes,
but probably not for the packages we share with Ubuntu, as this would be
problematic. So I have to start thinking about how to do it without
destroying the ongoing collaboration with James Page team. I also need
to have meetings with the Mirantis MOS packaging team, which will happen
in Moscow at the end of the month.

So, maybe, the best way to start would be with Zuul and Nodepool, as you
need that. Your contribution is very valuable. I'm not sure how I can
help you to help, and how to start... Let's agree to catch up on IRC and
discuss that, ok?

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)