Open Stack

On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 15:37 +0000, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> 
> 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
> > 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 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?

I see no harm in adding this extra type:deployment tag to some of the
TripleO deliverables.

+1 from me.

> 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> consume.
> 
> Thanks Thierry for the feedback.
> 
> Regards,
> -steve
> 
> 
> > 
> >