Open Stack

Ok. :)

Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________________
From: Jay Pipes [jaypipes at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:05 PM
To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

On 07/27/2016 05:51 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> Its a standard way of launching a given openstack service container with specified config regardless if its backed with a redhat or ubuntu or source based package set that the Operator can rely on having a standardized interface to. distro packages don't grantee that kind of thing and don't want to.
>
> To me, its an abstraction api kind of like nova is to kvm vs xen. the nova user shouldn't have to care which backend is chosen.

I can tell this conversation isn't going anywhere and we're not going to
agree, so let's just agree to disagree.

Best,
-jay

> ________________________________________
> From: Jay Pipes [jaypipes at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 2:12 PM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
>
> On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing thing.
>>
>> Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
>>
>>> I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in production, and rely on that api being consistent.
>>>
>>> I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds like a consumable api to me.
>>
>> I don’t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an interface for we should avoid duplication.
>
> Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
> *programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.
>
> What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
> Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
> the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.
>
> It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
> and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.
>
> I see no reason for the OpenStack community to standardize on those
> things, frankly. It's like asking RedHat and Canonical to agree to "just
> use RPM" as their package specification format. I wonder how that
> conversation would go.
>
> Best,
> -jay
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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