Open Stack

Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Technical Committee,
>
> Please accept my proposal of a new type of project called a deployment
> [1].  If people don’t like the type name, we can change it.  The basic
> idea is there are a class of projects unrepresented by type:service and
> type:library which are deployment projects including but not limited to
> Fuel, Kolla, OSA, and TripleO.  The main motivation behind this addition
> are:
>
>  1. Make it known to all which projects are deployment projects in the
>     governance repository.
>  2. Provide that information via the governance website under release
>     management tags.
>  3. Permit deployment projects to take part in the assert tags relating
>     to upgrades [2].
>
>
> Currently fuel is listed as a type:service in the governance repository
> which is only partially accurate.  It may provide a ReST API, but during
> the Kolla big tent application process, we were told we couldn't use
> type:service as it only applied to daemon services and not deployment
> projects.

I agree that type:service is not really a good match for Fuel or Kolla, 
and we could definitely use something else -- that would make it a lot 
clearer what is what for the downstream consumers of the software we 
produce.

One issue is that tags are applied to deliverables, not project teams. 
For the Fuel team it's pretty clear (it would apply to their "fuel" 
deliverable). For Kolla team, I suspect it would apply to the "kolla" 
deliverable. But the TripleO team produces a collection of tools, so 
it's unclear which of those would be considered the main "deployment" 
thing.

For OSA, we don't produce the deployment tool, only a set of playbooks. 
I was thinking we might need a type:packaging tag to describe which 
things we produce are just about packaging OpenStack things for usage by 
outside deployment systems (Ansible, Puppet, Chef, Deb, RPM...). So I'm 
not sure your type:deployment tag would apply to OSA.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)