Open Stack

Hi Jedrzej,

>> Maybe instead blueprint in 1st step should we create full blown
fuel-spec?

If there is anything to be discussed in implementation, or there are
different options to do it, it's better to have blueprint and spec, so
everybody will be able to see what the integration looks like.

Thanks,

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Jedrzej Nowak <jnowak at mirantis.com> wrote:

> As you may now we should integrate solar with fuel in 9.0. Integration in
> 9.0 will be very experimental and it will not affect fuel except: spec
> <https://review.openstack.org/283600>https://review.openstack.org/283600
>  and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/284293/
>
> We will introduce 2 new packages solar and fuel2solar ( + some
> dependencies) in Centos7, they will be available in mos-master
> repository. We would like to include not installed solar and fuel2solar in
> 9.0 ISO.
>
> Predicted UX:
> - user will need to install 2 rpm packages: solar and fuel2solar
> - user will configure everything in fuel-web and then switch to solar CLI
> before clicking "deploy" button
>
> Our current plan is:
> 1. create blueprint about introducing these 2 additional packages (and
> requirements)
> 2. then should we describe everything again in openstack-dev ML
> 3. describe this everything in fuel docs
>
> Maybe instead blueprint  in 1st step should we create full blown fuel-spec
> ? That spec obviously will not require any QA activities.
>
>
> --
> Warm regards,
> Jędrzej Nowak
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20160226/3d7c5e30/attachment.html>