Open Stack

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:

> Needing to fork templates to tweak things is a very common problem.
>
> Adding conditionals to Heat was discussed at the Summit. (
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-heat-liberty-template-format). I
> want to say, someone was going to prototype it using YAQL, but I don't
> remember who.
>

I was going to do that, but I would not expect that ready in a very short
time frame. It needs
some investigation and agreement from others. I'd suggest making you
decision based
on what we have now.

-Angus


>
> Would it be reasonable to keep if conditionals worked?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> ________________________________________
> From: Hongbin Lu [hongbin.lu at huawei.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 3:01 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Continuing with heat-coe-templates
>
> Agree. The motivation of pulling templates out of Magnum tree is hoping
> these templates can be leveraged by a larger community and get more
> feedback. However, it is unlikely to be the case in practise, because
> different people has their own version of templates for addressing
> different use cases. It is proven to be hard to consolidate different
> templates even if these templates share a large amount of duplicated code
> (recall that we have to copy-and-paste the original template to add support
> for Ironic and CoreOS). So, +1 for stopping usage of heat-coe-templates.
>
> Best regards,
> Hongbin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Cammann [mailto:tom.cammann at hp.com]
> Sent: June-29-15 11:16 AM
> To: openstack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Continuing with heat-coe-templates
>
> Hello team,
>
> I've been doing work in Magnum recently to align our templates with the
> "upstream" templates from larsks/heat-kubernetes[1]. I've also been porting
> these changes to the stackforge/heat-coe-templates[2] repo.
>
> I'm currently not convinced that maintaining a separate repo for Magnum
> templates (stackforge/heat-coe-templates) is beneficial for Magnum or the
> community.
>
> Firstly it is very difficult to draw a line on what should be allowed into
> the heat-coe-templates. We are currently taking out changes[3] that
> introduced "useful" autoscaling capabilities in the templates but that
> didn't fit the Magnum plan. If we are going to treat the heat-coe-templates
> in that way then this extra repo will not allow organic development of new
> and old container engine templates that are not tied into Magnum.
> Another recent change[4] in development is smart autoscaling of bays which
> introduces parameters that don't make a lot of sense outside of Magnum.
>
> There are also difficult interdependency problems between the templates
> and the Magnum project such as the parameter fields. If a required
> parameter is added into the template the Magnum code must be also updated
> in the same commit to avoid functional test failures. This can be avoided
> using "Depends-On:
> #xxxxxx"
> feature of gerrit, but it is an additional overhead and will require some
> CI setup.
>
> Additionally we would have to version the templates, which I assume would
> be necessary to allow for packaging. This brings with it is own problems.
>
> As far as I am aware there are no other people using the
> heat-coe-templates beyond the Magnum team, if we want independent growth of
> this repo it will need to be adopted by other people rather than Magnum
> commiters.
>
> I don't see the heat templates as a dependency of Magnum, I see them as a
> truly fundamental part of Magnum which is going to be very difficult to cut
> out and make reusable without compromising Magnum's development process.
>
> I would propose to delete/deprecate the usage of heat-coe-templates and
> continue with the usage of the templates in the Magnum repo. How does the
> team feel about that?
>
> If we do continue with the large effort required to try and pull out the
> templates as a dependency then we will need increase the visibility of repo
> and greatly increase the reviews/commits on the repo. We also have a fairly
> significant backlog of work to align the heat-coe-templates with the
> templates in heat-coe-templates.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> [1] https://github.com/larsks/heat-kubernetes
> [2] https://github.com/stackforge/heat-coe-templates
> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184687/
> [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/196505/
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20150630/4ff77d0e/attachment.html>