Open Stack

On 09/28/2015 08:31 AM, David Moreau Simard wrote:
> puppet-ceph currently lives in stackforge [1] which is being retired
> [2]. puppet-ceph is also mirrored on the Ceph Github organization [3].
> This version of the puppet-ceph module was created from scratch and
> not as a fork of the (then) upstream puppet-ceph by Enovance [4].
> Today, the version by Enovance is no longer officially maintained
> since Red Hat has adopted the new release.
>
> Being an Openstack project under Stackforge or Openstack brings a lot
> of benefits but it's not black and white, there are cons too.
>
> It provides us with the tools, the processes and the frameworks to
> review and test each contribution to ensure we ship a module that is
> stable and is held to the highest standards.
> But it also means that:
> - We forego some level of ownership back to the Openstack foundation,
> it's technical committee and the Puppet Openstack PTL.
> - puppet-ceph contributors will also be required to sign the
> Contributors License Agreement and jump through the Gerrit hoops [5]
> which can make contributing to the project harder.
>
> We have put tremendous efforts into creating a quality module and as
> such it was the first puppet module in the stackforge organization to
> implement not only unit tests but also integration tests with third
> party CI.
> Integration testing for other puppet modules are just now starting to
> take shape by using the Openstack CI inrastructure.
>
> In the context of Openstack, RDO already ships with a mean to install
> Ceph with this very module and Fuel will be adopting it soon as well.
> This means the module will benefit from real world experience and
> improvements by the Openstack community and packagers.
> This will help further reinforce that not only Ceph is the best
> unified storage solution for Openstack but that we have means to
> deploy it in the real world easily.
>
> We all know that Ceph is also deployed outside of this context and
> this is why the core reviewers make sure that contributions remain
> generic and usable outside of this use case.
>
> Today, the core members of the project discussed whether or not we
> should move puppet-ceph to the Openstack big tent and we had a
> consensus approving the move.
> We would also like to hear the thoughts of the community on this topic.
>
> Please let us know what you think.
There was some discussion a while back around whether or not to bring
those modules into the project which provide support for
OpenStack-related tools which were not part of OpenStack themselves. The
specific example at that time was the puppet-midonet module.

Unfortunately the consensus was to not allow these modules in. I think
now, as I did then, that there is a lot of value in bringing some of
these things into the project, as so many of our implementations depend
on them. I also understand the other perspective, but think any concerns
could be addressed by building some formal criteria about what third
party tools are 'blessed'.

I look forward to seeing feedback from the rest of the community on this.

Regards,

Richard

-------------- 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/20150928/bc64ba05/attachment.pgp>