[openstack-dev] [deployment][TripleO][kolla][ansible][fuel] Next steps for cross project collaboration
flavio at redhat.com
Tue Feb 28 08:24:17 UTC 2017
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>
>> > Hi all,
>> > Over the recent PTG, and previously at the design summit in
>> > we've had some productive cross-project discussions amongst the
>> > 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
>> > 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-
>> > 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
>> > term to proceed with?
>> > WFM.Â Anything longer such as "openstack-deployment-tools" doesn't
>> > up very well in IRC clients.Â Forgive the bikeshedding;
>> > "openstack-deploy-tools" is very project-neutral and shows up well in
>> > clients.
>> > Â
>> > I'd suggest we start with an informal WG, which it seems just
>> > an
>> > update to the wiki, e.g no need for any formal project team at this
>> > point?
>> > WFM.Â Since we aren't really a project team but a collection of
>> > working together, I don't think we need further formalization.
>> > Â
>> > Likewise I know some folks have expressed an interest in an IRC
>> > (openstack-deployment?), I'm happy to start with the ML but open to
>> > 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
>> > ML
>> > traffic, then potentially discuss IRC (or even regular meetings) if
>> > becomes apparrent these would add value beyond ML discussion?
>> > [deploy-tools] may be better unless that breaks people's email
>> > I am out of bandwidth personally for meetings, although others may be
>> > interested in a meeting.Â I'm not sure what value a regular meeting
>> > have and would need a chair, which may result in an inability to
>> > neutral ground.
>> > IMO IRC and ML would be sufficient for this CP effort, however others
>> > 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.
>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,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the OpenStack-dev