Open Stack

On 27/02/17 09:56 -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Steven Hardy <shardy at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:25:46AM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
>> >    comments inline.
>> >    On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Steven Hardy <shardy at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >      Hi all,
>> >
>> >      Over the recent PTG, and previously at the design summit in
>> Barcelona,
>> >      we've had some productive cross-project discussions amongst the
>> various
>> >      deployment teams.
>> >
>> >      It's clear that we share many common problems, such as patterns for
>> >      major
>> >      version upgrades (even if the workflow isn't identical we've all
>> >      duplicated
>> >      effort e.g around basic nova upgrade workflow recently), container
>> >      images
>> >      and other common building blocks for configuration management.
>> >
>> >      Here's a non-exhaustive list of sessions where we had some good
>> >      cross-project discussion, and agreed a number of common problems
>> where
>> >      collaboration may be possible:
>> >
>> >      https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ansible-config-mgt
>> >
>> >      https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-kolla-kubernetes
>> >
>> >      https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kolla-pike-ptg-images
>> >
>> >      https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-ocata-fuel-tripleo-
>> integration
>> >
>> >      If there is interest in continuing the discussions on a more regular
>> >      basis,
>> >      I'd like to propose we start a cross-project working group:
>> >
>> >      https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Category:Working_Groups
>> >
>> >      If I go ahead and do this is "deployment" a sufficiently
>> project-neutral
>> >      term to proceed with?
>> >
>> >    WFM.  Anything longer such as "openstack-deployment-tools" doesn't
>> show
>> >    up very well in IRC clients.  Forgive the bikeshedding;
>> >    "openstack-deploy-tools" is very project-neutral and shows up well in
>> IRC
>> >    clients.
>> >    Â
>> >
>> >      I'd suggest we start with an informal WG, which it seems just
>> requires
>> >      an
>> >      update to the wiki, e.g no need for any formal project team at this
>> >      point?
>> >
>> >    WFM.  Since we aren't really a project team but a collection of
>> projects
>> >    working together, I don't think we need further formalization.
>> >    Â
>> >
>> >      Likewise I know some folks have expressed an interest in an IRC
>> channel
>> >      (openstack-deployment?), I'm happy to start with the ML but open to
>> IRC
>> >      also if someone is willing to set up the channel.
>> >
>> >    +1 - I think an IRC channel would be the best way for real time
>> >    communication.
>> >    Â
>> >
>> >      Perhaps we can start by using the tag "deployment" in all
>> cross-project
>> >      ML
>> >      traffic, then potentially discuss IRC (or even regular meetings) if
>> it
>> >      becomes apparrent these would add value beyond ML discussion?
>> >
>> >    [deploy-tools] may be better unless that breaks people's email
>> clients.
>> >    I am out of bandwidth personally for meetings, although others may be
>> >    interested in a meeting.  I'm not sure what value a regular meeting
>> would
>> >    have and would need a chair, which may result in an inability to
>> obtain
>> >    neutral ground.
>> >    IMO IRC and ML would be sufficient for this CP effort, however others
>> may
>> >    have different viewpoints.
>>
>> No strong opinion, but FWIW I chose "deployment" because I'd like to see
>> collaboration not only around tools, but also around experiences and
>> abstract workflow (e.g we could have all shared experiences around, say,
>> nova upgrades without necessarily focussing on any one tool).
>>
>> "deployment" seems like a catch-all and it uses less characters in the
>> subject line ;)  But I'm happy to go with the consensus here.
>>
>> I agree ML/IRC should be sufficient, at least in the first instance.
>>
>> Steve,
>
>openstack-deployment makes sense to me given the above.  The only downside
>I see is there is a bit of overlap with #openstack-operators given the
>objectives you stated.  I think that is a solvable problem.
>
>I've registered #openstack-deployment and #openstack-deploy-tools
>properly.  If the OpenStack deployment project members wish to proceed, I
>will commit to doing the legwork of setting up the bots/etc on the final
>name we come up with even if it isn't one of the above two :)

This sounds like a good thing to have!

Thank you all for starting this,
Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170228/e64663a5/attachment-0001.pgp>