Open Stack

On 06/17/2015 09:50 AM, Serg Melikyan wrote:
> Thank you for sharing link to list of things that new module should
> satisfy to! It will be really helpful even if list will change over
> time. At least we have pointers how to start making our module
> compliant.
> 
> Regarding figuring out permissions - I don't mind if we will set
> puppet-core as group responsible for the repository, I believe that
> through contributing Murano module authors will get enough
> creditability to be included to the puppet-core. This will help to
> ensure that module is developed according all rules of Puppet
> OpenStack Community and nothing will be merged that does not satisfy
> adopted way of doing things. Emilien, if you agree with this approach
> I will send appropriate change to review.
> 

I like Monty's proposal.

I propose:
* Move the module under the big tent
* Adding Puppet OpenStack group part of core permissions
* Keep Puppet Murano folks part of core permissions for now
* Do not merge a patch without at least one review from both groups
* Collaborate to make the module compliant
* When the module is compliant, we only keep Puppet OpenStack group
managing the module, like it's done for other modules.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
> On 06/17/2015 08:53 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>>>> Hi Serg,
>>>>
>>>> On 06/17/2015 05:35 AM, Serg Melikyan wrote:
>>>>> Hi Emilien,
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to answer your question regarding
>>>>> stackforge/puppet-murano repository asked in different thread:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone from Fuel team created first the module in Fuel, 6
>>>>>> months ago [1] and 3 months later someone from Fuel team
>>>>>> created an empty repository in Stackforge [2]. By the way,
>>>>>> Puppet OpenStack community does not have core permissions on
>>>>>> this module and it's own by Murano team.
>>>>>
>>>>> Murano was included to Fuel around 2 years ago, our first
>>>>> official release as part of Fuel was Icehouse - yes, we have
>>>>> puppet module for Murano for a long time now. But until recently
>>>>> we didn't had a Big Tent in place and that is why we never
>>>>> thought that we able to upstream our module.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once policy regarding upstream puppet modules in Fuel changed and
>>>>> Big Tent model was adopted we decided to upstream module for
>>>>> Murano. I am really sorry that I didn't contact you for more
>>>>> information how to do that properly and just created
>>>>> corresponding repository.
>>>>
>>>> Well, in fact, I'm sorry for you; you could not benefit of Puppet
>>>> OpenStack community. Let's fix that.
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't give permission to Puppet OpenStack community for this
>>>>> repository because it would be strange, given I didn't even
>>>>> contact you. We thought that we would upstream what we have now
>>>>> and then make sure that this repo will be integrated with Puppet
>>>>> OpenStack ecosystem.
>>>>>
>>>>> We still have big desire to upstream our puppet module. Fuel is
>>>>> not only user of this module, there are other projects who would
>>>>> like to use Murano as part of they solution and use puppet module
>>>>> from Fuel for deployment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you advise how we should proceed further?
>>>>
>>>> The more recent patch to add a module in OpenStack is zaqar:
>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191942/
>>>>
>>>> Two things we need to solve is the fact if you move your module to
>>>> the big tent: * bring the module compliant (I'm working on a
>>>> blueprint to explain what is that, but you can already read what we
>>>> said at the Summit:
>>>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-summit-design-puppet-compliant
>>>>
>>>>
> * figure out Gerrit permissions. If the module is official, it has to be
>>>> maintained by Puppet OpenStack group, but that would mean you won't
>>>> be core on it, which is weird to me at this stage. We are facing
>>>> the same situation with puppet-monasca, (except the module lives in
>>>> Stackforge for day1).
>>>>
> 
> When we suck sub-projects into infra, we often make the person or team
> who was maintainer on it before it came into infra core on just that -
> with the infra-core team on it as well. For instance:
> 
> puppet-murano-core:
>   serg melikyan
>   puppet-core
> 
> Or something. Not saying it's the right choice- just that it's the
> pattern we've followed before over in our neck of the woods.
> 
>>>>>
>>>>> References: [1]
>>>>> https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-library/tree/master/deployment/puppet/murano/
>>>>>
>>>>>
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/155688
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for taking care of that!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
> 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
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Emilien Macchi

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150617/cd9fe75e/attachment.pgp>