Open Stack

Jeff,

What you propose is reasonable, but the timeline to make all that long
term vision happen is time consuming and we want to get rolling now, not
in t-4 to 6 weeks after we can sort out a kolla-docker and kolla-ansible
split.

FWIW It will make backporting a serious painful experience, and I am
totally not in favor of doing any type of splitting of docker and ansible
until the core team is fully comfortable with maintaining stable backports.

Further I want the core team to understand how gating works (and that
happens by doing).  Gating experience will come in this cycle.

By doing these two things we could possibly have a split repo in as little
as a week if 1 person weren't responsible for all of the work.  To get
there takes training on backporting and gating, which I expect people will
learn well over the next cycle.

Regards
-steve

On 5/2/16, 11:23 AM, "Jeff Peeler" <jpeeler at redhat.com> wrote:

>On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
>wrote:
>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon
>>one
>> off private conversations with folks at summit. Many people from that
>>list
>> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated
>>in
>> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I
>>heard
>> were:
>>
>> Better integration of the community
>> Better integration of the code base
>> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened
>>during
>> kolla-mesos
>> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
>>architecture
>> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>> Two gating methods versus one
>> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>>
>> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>>
>> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not
>>be
>> deleted
>>
>> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed
>>to
>> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now
>>is
>> the time for fixing that.
>
>I favor the repository split, but the reason being is that I think
>Ansible along with Kubernetes should each be a separate repository.
>Keeping a monolithic repository is the opposite of the "Unix
>philosophy". It was even recommended at one point to split every
>single service into a separate repository [1].
>
>Repository management, backports, and additional gating are all things
>that I'll admit are more work with more than one single repository.
>However, the ease of ramping up where everything is separated out
>makes it worth it in my opinion. I believe the success of a given
>community is partially due to proper delineation of expertise
>(otherwise, why not put all OpenStack services in one gigantic repo?).
>I'm echoing this comment somebody said at the summit: stretching the
>core team across every orchestration tool is not scalable. I'm really
>hoping more projects will grow around the Kolla ecosystem and can do
>so without being required to become proficient with every other
>orchestration system.
>
>One argument for keeping a single repository is to compare to the
>mesos effort (that has stopped now) in a different repository. But as
>it has already been said, mesos should have been given fairness with
>ansible split out as well. If everything were in a single repository,
>it has been suggested that the community will review more. However, I
>don't personally believe that with gerrit in use that affects things
>at all. OpenStack even has a gerrit dashboard creator [2], but I think
>developers are capable enough at easily finding what they want to
>consistently review.
>
>As I said in a previous reply [3], I don't think git history should
>affect this decision as we can make it work in either scenario. ACL
>permissions seem overly complicated to be in the same repository, even
>if we can arrange for a feature branch to have different permissions
>from the main repo.
>
>My views here are definitely focused on the long term view. If any
>short term plans can be made to allow ourselves to eventually align
>with having separate repositories, I don't think I'd have a problem
>with that. However, I thought the Ansible code was supposed to have
>been separated out a long time ago. This is a natural inflection point
>to change policy and mode of operating, which is why I don't enjoy the
>idea of waiting any longer. Luckily, having Ansible in the same
>repository currently does not inhibit any momentum with Kubernetes in
>a separate repository.
>
>As far as starting the repositories split and then merging them in the
>future (assuming Ansible also stays in one repo), I don't know why we
>would want that. But perhaps after the Kubernetes effort has
>progressed we can better determine if that makes sense with a clear
>view of what the project files actually end up looking like. I don't
>think that any project that changes the containers' ABI is suitable to
>be labeled as "Kolla", so there wouldn't be any dockerfiles part of
>the repository.
>
>[1] 
>http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-April/093213.html
>[2] https://github.com/openstack/gerrit-dash-creator
>[3] 
>http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/093645.html
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>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