Open Stack

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 28/07/16 15:48 +0300, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
>
>> 1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being
>>>
>>
>> published by the press and Mirantis's executive team
>>>
>>
>> 2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance
>>>
>>
>> Repository
>>>
>>
>> Frankly, I don’t understand what part of the press release contradicts
>> with
>> Fuel mission.
>>
>> Current Fuel mission is “To streamline and accelerate the process of
>> deploying, testing and maintaining various configurations of OpenStack at
>> scale.” which means we are not bound to any specific technology when
>> deploying OpenStack.
>>
>
> TBH, I also think this statement is broad enough to cover containers.
> Unless the
> request is to explicitly mention "containers" in the mission statement, I
> think
> there's no need to change it. I'd also be against having "containers" being
> explicitly mentioned in Fuel's statement, FWIW. I don't think it'd be of
> any
> benefit/use. Unless I'm missing something fundamental here, of course.


​I agree that the current mission statement seems fine.


>
> At the moment Fuel deploys RPM/DEB packages using Puppet and Fuel specific
>> orchestration mechanism. We are not going to drop this approach
>> immediately, it works quite well and we are working hard to make things
>> better (including ability to upgrade). But we also keep in mind that
>> technologies are constantly changing and we’d like to benefit of this
>> progress. That is why we are now looking at Docker containers and
>> Kubernetes. Our users know that it is not our first experience of trying
>> to
>> use containers. Fuel releases prior to 9.0 used to deploy Fuel services in
>> containers on the Fuel admin node.
>>
>> Many of you know how difficult it is to upgrade OpenStack clusters. We
>> hope
>> that containers could help us to solve not all but some of problems that
>> we
>> encounter when upgrading cluster. Maintaining and hence upgrade of
>> OpenStack clusters is a part of Fuel mission and we are just trying to
>> find
>> a way how to do things.
>>
>> Why not Kolla but Fuel-ccp? It is not a secret that Fuel is driven by
>> Mirantis. At Mirantis we deploy and maintain OpenStack. In attempts to
>> find
>> a way how to make OpenStack easily maintainable, some of Mirantis folks
>> spent some time to contribute to Kolla and Mesos. But there were some
>> concerns that were discussed several times (including this Kolla spec
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330575) that would make it not so easy
>> to
>> use Kolla containers for our use cases. Fuel-ccp is just an attempt to
>> address these concerns. Frankly, I don’t see anything bad in having more
>> than one set of container images (like we have more than one set of
>> RPM/DEB
>> distributions).
>>
>
> ++
>

​I think the project seems fine.  They are clearly aware of Kolla.  If they
don't want to use it (for whatever the reason), I don't think it matters.
OpenStack deployment is far from a well solved problem.  We have plenty of
overlapping deployment related projects and I'm happy to see that
continue.  Ongoing experimentation with different approaches is a good
thing here.

To summarize, I see all actions taken so far by the Fuel team as fine.  I
see no need to change anything in governance.  They are free to add it as
an official deliverable if and when they choose to do so.  Even if they
have a vision of these things becoming official and supported in the
future, that does not mean they must mark them that way today.

-- 
Russell Bryant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160728/28d19aff/attachment.html>