Open Stack

On 06/28/2017 03:03 PM, Steven Hardy wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ben Nemec <openstack at nemebean.com> wrote:
>> A few weeks later than I had planned, but here's the other half of the field
>> feedback I mentioned in my previous email:
>>
>> * They very emphatically want in-place upgrades to work when moving from
>> non-containerized to containerized.  I think this is already the plan, but I
>> told them I'd make sure development was aware of the desire.
>
> It is the plan, and already has basic CI coverage via
> gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-containers-multinode-upgrades-nv
>
> At this point we need more testing of production-like deployments but
> in general this is expected to work.

Okay, that's what I thought and told them initially, but they feel quite 
strongly about this so I told them I would check.  Job done. :-)

>
>> * There was also great interest in contributing back some of the custom
>> templates that they've had to write to get advanced features working in the
>> field.  Here again we recommended that they start with an RFE so things
>> could be triaged appropriately.  I'm hoping we can find some developer time
>> to help polish and shepherd these things through the review process.
>>
>> * Policy configuration was discussed, and I pointed them at some recent work
>> we have done around that:
>> https://docs.openstack.org/developer/tripleo-docs/advanced_deployment/api_policies.html
>> I'm not sure it fully addressed their issues, but I suggested they take a
>> closer look and provide feedback on any ways it doesn't meet their needs.
>>
>> The specific use case they were looking at right now was adding a read-only
>> role.  They did provide me with a repo containing their initial work, but
>> unfortunately it's private to Red Hat so I can't share it here.
>>
>> * They wanted to be able to maintain separate role files instead of one
>> monolithic roles_data.yaml.  Apparently they have a pre-deploy script now
>> that essentially concatenates some individual files to get this
>> functionality.  I think this has already been addressed by
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445687
>
> Yes this is already possible, but only via the CLI - that feature
> needs porting to tripleo-common so that it can be consumed by
> tripleo-ui, which was discussed but I'm not sure on the latest status.
>
>> * They've also been looking at ways to reorganize the templates in a more
>> intuitive fashion.  At first glance the changes seemed reasonable, but they
>> were still just defining the layout.  I don't know that they've actually
>> tried to use the reorganized templates yet and given the number of relative
>> paths in tht I suspect it may be a bigger headache than they expect, but I
>> thought it was interesting.  There may at least be elements of this work
>> that we can use to make the templates easier to understand for deployers.
>
> More information on this would be helpful, e.g what specific issues
> they are trying to solve and the layout they found to be better and
> why?

Looking at the contents of the repo again I'm not sure they actually 
rearranged tht at all.  I think they may just have been defining a 
structure for their environment files and role definitions.  I probably 
need to follow up with them when they have a little more concrete idea 
of what they want to do around this.