Open Stack

On 04/13/2016 07:17 PM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
> Andreas, Lana, Mike, Matt, and others who've been active on this thread,
> 
> I've been following this conversation about installation documentation and core vs. non-core projects from afar and was under the impression that the changes being proposed would take effect for Newton and moving forward.
> 
> Today I was informed that after a lot of effort and testing, the installation guide for Trove/Mitaka which is ready and up for review[1] has been placed on hold pending the outcome of your discussions in Austin.

> The documentation that is now available and ready for review is for the Mitaka series and should not, I believe, be held up because there is now a proposal afoot to put non-core project installation guides somewhere else. If we choose to do that, that's a conversation for Newton, I believe, and I believe that the Trove installation guide for Mitaka should be considered for inclusion along with the other Mitaka documentation.

Amrith, I'm a bit surprised by this email and request. So, let me give
some more context.

There's a spec out:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290053 for this work which came very
late. Bogdan asked on the 23rd of March, and I commented on the spec
with -1 on the 27th of March that this is a post-Mitaka topic. Then, on
the 29th of March, your referenced change gets submitted -without any
followup discussion on the spec.

Would you have taken a code change under these conditions for trove itself?

While I applaud your team's work, the documentation team also needs to
review content you propose for consistency - and that takes time. We're
still flashing out some details for some of the guides for Mitaka.

> The lack of installation guides for a project is a serious challenge for deployers and users, and much work has been expended getting the Trove documentation ready and thoroughly tested on Ubuntu, RDO and SUSE.
> 
> I'm therefore requesting that the doc team consider this set of documentation for the Mitaka series and make it available with the other install guides for other projects after it has been reviewed, and not hold it subject to the outcome of some Newton focused discussion that is to happen in Austin.

I'm glad about the work the team has done and will not block this going
in on my own. IMHO think we have the following options:

1) Wait until Austin and speed track this change afterwards based on the
outcome of the discussion there if possible.
2) Take the change in with the explicit understanding that it might be
taken out again based on the general Install Guide discussion.
3) Do nothing for Mitaka.

I'm happy to take my -2 away from the change after the spec has been
approved and we've decided which of the options  to take - and for that
I defer to Lana and Matt.

So, let's discuss how to move forward on the documentation list with the
docs team and see what they suggest,

Andreas

> Thanks,
> 
> -amrith
> 
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/298929/
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andreas Jaeger [mailto:aj at suse.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 2:42 PM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [docs] Our Install Guides Only Cover Defcore
>> - What about big tent?
>>
>> On 04/04/2016 12:12 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> We would love to add all sufficiently mature projects to the
>>>>> installation guide because it increases visibility and adoption by
>>>>> operators, but we lack resources to develop a source installation
>>>>> mechanism that retains as much simplicity as possible for our
>>>>> audience.
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be a big mistake to try to create one guide for
>>>> installing all OpenStack projects. As you say, testing what we have
>>>> now is already a monumental task and impedes your ability to make
>>>> changes.  Adding more projects, with ever more dependencies and
>>>> configuration issues to the work the same team is doing would bury
>>>> the current documentation team. So I think focusing on the DefCore
>>>> list, or even a smaller list of projects with tight installation
>>>> integration requirements, makes sense for the team currently
>>>> producing the installation guide.
>>>
>>> Yes, the base install guide should ideally serve as a reference to
>>> reach that first step where you have all the underlying services
>>> (MySQL,
>>> Rabbit) and a base set of functionality (starterkit:compute ?)
>>> installed and working. That is where we need high-quality,
>>> proactively-checked, easy to understand content.
>>>
>>> Then additional guides (ideally produced by each project team with
>>> tooling and mentoring from the docs team) can pick up from that base
>>> first step, assuming their users have completed that first step
>>> successfully.
>>>
>>
>> Fully agreed.
>>
>> I just wrote a first draft spec for all of this and look forward to
>> reviews.
>>
>> I'll enhance some more tomorrow, might copy a bit from above (saw this too
>> late).
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/301284
>>
>> Andreas
>> --
>>  Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
>>   SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>>    GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
>>        HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
>>     GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 


-- 
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
       HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
    GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126