[openstack-dev] [tc][fuel][kolla][osa][tripleo] proposing type:deployment

Steven Dake (stdake) stdake at cisco.com
Tue Mar 22 15:37:38 UTC 2016

On 3/22/16, 2:15 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:

>Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> Technical Committee,
>> Please accept my proposal of a new type of project called a deployment
>> [1].  If people don¹t 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
>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"

For kolla we are considering splitting the repository (to be discussed at
the Kolla midcycle) into our docker packaging efforts and our Ansible
deployment efforts since the ABI is very stable at this point and we don't
see any requirements for changing the container ABI at present.  What this
would mean is our repositories would be

Kolla - build docker containers - type:packaging
Kolla-ansible - deploy Kolla's docker containers - type:deployment (and
type:upgrade in the future once we get a gate up to meet the requirements
and assuming this proposal is voted in by the technical committee).

In essence Kolla would be affected by this same scenario as TripleO.

Perhaps the tripleo folks could weigh-in in the review.  I don't want the
tag to be onerous to apply.  I believe tags should be relatively easy to
obtain if the project meets the "spirit of the tag".  That said if the
proposed language could be written to include TripleO's deliverable
without excluding it, then that is what I'd be after.

Dan can you weigh in?

>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.

Brain still booting this morning - 8am ftl.  Thinking more clearly on this
point, we could add a requirement that the software produce a functional
out of the box working environment.  This would easily apply to OSA and
possibly even Puppet/Chef efforts.

A stab at it would be:
"After deployment is complete, the starter-kit:compute is fully
operational without further interaction from the Operator."

Open to language help in the review itself - I'll propose an update this
morning.  I'd like to be inclusive of projects like Puppet and Chef and
obviously OSA which are clearly deployment systems which rely on
deployment tools like Puppet, Chef, and Ansible respectively.  This is the
same model Kolla follows as well.  Kolla Doesn't reinvent Ansible, we just
use it.

A type:packaging doesn't really fit though, because Kolla provides a
completely working out of the box deployment whereas packaging (deb,
docker, rpm) only package the software for other deployment tools to

Thanks Thierry for the feedback.


>Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list