Open Stack

I am planning on looking into Murano later this year so I'd be interested
in helping review this code. I'm puppet-core so feel free to add me to
reviews and I can look as time permits.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Serg Melikyan <smelikyan at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Emilien,
>
> Thank you for your proposal, I completely agree with it:
>
> > * Move the module under the big tent
> Proposed change in infra [1] and corresponding change in governance [2]
>
> > * Adding Puppet OpenStack group part of core permissions
> I've added puppet-manager-core to puppet-murano-core
>
> > * Keep Puppet Murano folks part of core permissions for now
> I've added Denis Egorenko to puppet-murano-core (group was empty
> previously).
>
> > * Do not merge a patch without at least one review from both groups
> > * Collaborate to make the module compliant
> Denis will be responsible for initial review from Murano side in order
> to not overburden OpenStack Puppet with helping with Puppet basics. We
> will make sure to not merge anything without +2 from someone from
> puppet-manager-core. We will start with basic repository structure and
> will move existing module bit by bit.
>
> > * When the module is compliant, we only keep Puppet OpenStack
> >   group managing the module, like it's done for other modules.
> Sure!
>
> Once again thank you for your help and concerns!
>
> References:
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/192730
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/192727
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc.
> http://mirantis.com | smelikyan at mirantis.com
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20150617/6f76ddc7/attachment.html>