Open Stack

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
wrote:

> Yup but that didn't happen with kolla-mesos and I didn't catch it until 2
> weeks after it was locked in stone.  At that point I asked for the ABI to
> be unified to which I got a "shrug" and no action.
>
> If it has been in one repo, everyone would have seen the multiple ABIs and
> rejected the patch in the first place.
>
> FWIW I am totally open to extending the ABI however is necessary to make
> Kolla containers be the reference that other projects use for their
> container deployment technology tooling.  In this case the ABI was
> extended without consultation and without repair after the problem was
> noticed.


ABI has been mentioned a lot in either this thread or the spec code review.
Does it refer to container image only, or does it cover other part like
jinja2
template for config generation as well?

That is the part I think need more clarification. Because even though we
treat
Kubernetes as just another deployment tool, but if it still relies on
Ansible to
generate configuations (as proposed in the spec[1]), then there's no clean
way
to centralize all Kube related stuff in separate repo.

If we're going to re-use Kolla's jinja2 templates and ini merging (which is
heavily depends on Ansible module as of now), I think practically it is
easiser
to bootstrap Kubernetes stuff in the same Kolla repo. But other than that,
I'm
in favor of separate Kolla-kubernetes repo.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/304182

QY
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160502/dfc6d421/attachment.html>