Open Stack

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Dan Prince <dprince at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 16:03 -0600, Alex Schultz wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Dan Prince <dprince at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Alex Schultz <aschultz at redhat.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Dan Prince <dprince at redhat.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 15:20 -0600, Alex Schultz wrote:
>> > > > > Hey Dan,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks for sending out a note about this. I have a few
>> > > > > questions
>> > > > > inline.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Dan Prince <dprince at redhat.co
>> > > > > m>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > One of the things the TripleO containers team is planning
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > tackling
>> > > > > > in Queens is fully containerizing the undercloud. At the
>> > > > > > PTG we
>> > > > > > created
>> > > > > > an etherpad [1] that contains a list of features that need
>> > > > > > to be
>> > > > > > implemented to fully replace instack-undercloud.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I know we talked about this at the PTG and I was skeptical
>> > > > > that this
>> > > > > will land in Queens. With the exception of the Container's
>> > > > > team
>> > > > > wanting this, I'm not sure there is an actual end user who is
>> > > > > looking
>> > > > > for the feature so I want to make sure we're not just doing
>> > > > > more work
>> > > > > because we as developers think it's a good idea.
>> > > >
>> > > > I've heard from several operators that they were actually
>> > > > surprised we
>> > > > implemented containers in the Overcloud first. Validating a new
>> > > > deployment framework on a single node Undercloud (for
>> > > > operators) before
>> > > > overtaking their entire cloud deployment has a lot of merit to
>> > > > it IMO.
>> > > > When you share the same deployment architecture across the
>> > > > overcloud/undercloud it puts us in a better position to decide
>> > > > where to
>> > > > expose new features to operators first (when creating the
>> > > > undercloud or
>> > > > overcloud for example).
>> > > >
>> > > > Also, if you read my email again I've explicitly listed the
>> > > > "Containers" benefit last. While I think moving the undercloud
>> > > > to
>> > > > containers is a great benefit all by itself this is more of a
>> > > > "framework alignment" in TripleO and gets us out of maintaining
>> > > > huge
>> > > > amounts of technical debt. Re-using the same framework for the
>> > > > undercloud and overcloud has a lot of merit. It effectively
>> > > > streamlines
>> > > > the development process for service developers, and 3rd parties
>> > > > wishing
>> > > > to integrate some of their components on a single node. Why be
>> > > > forced
>> > > > to create a multi-node dev environment if you don't have to
>> > > > (aren't
>> > > > using HA for example).
>> > > >
>> > > > Lets be honest. While instack-undercloud helped solve the old
>> > > > "seed" VM
>> > > > issue it was outdated the day it landed upstream. The entire
>> > > > premise of
>> > > > the tool is that it uses old style "elements" to create the
>> > > > undercloud
>> > > > and we moved away from those as the primary means driving the
>> > > > creation
>> > > > of the Overcloud years ago at this point. The new
>> > > > 'undercloud_deploy'
>> > > > installer gets us back to our roots by once again sharing the
>> > > > same
>> > > > architecture to create the over and underclouds. A demo from
>> > > > long ago
>> > > > expands on this idea a bit:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1
>> > > > qMDLAf26
>> > > > Q&t=5s
>> > > >
>> > > > In short, we aren't just doing more work because developers
>> > > > think it is
>> > > > a good idea. This has potential to be one of the most useful
>> > > > architectural changes in TripleO that we've made in years.
>> > > > Could
>> > > > significantly decrease our CI reasources if we use it to
>> > > > replace the
>> > > > existing scenarios jobs which take multiple VMs per job. Is a
>> > > > building
>> > > > block we could use for other features like and HA undercloud.
>> > > > And yes,
>> > > > it does also have a huge impact on developer velocity in that
>> > > > many of
>> > > > us already prefer to use the tool as a means of streamlining
>> > > > our
>> > > > dev/test cycles to minutes instead of hours. Why spend hours
>> > > > running
>> > > > quickstart Ansible scripts when in many cases you can just
>> > > > doit.sh. htt
>> > > > ps://github.com/dprince/undercloud_containers/blob/master/doit.
>> > > > sh
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > So like I've repeatedly said, I'm not completely against it as I
>> > > agree
>> > > what we have is not ideal.  I'm not -2, I'm -1 pending additional
>> > > information. I'm trying to be realistic and reduce our risk for
>> > > this
>> > > cycle.
>> >
>> >
>> > This reduces our complexity greatly I think in that once it is
>> > completed
>> > will allow us to eliminate two project (instack and instack-
>> > undercloud) and
>> > the maintenance thereof. Furthermore, as this dovetails nice with
>> > the
>> > Ansible
>> >
>>
>> I agree. So I think there's some misconceptions here about my
>> thoughts
>> on this effort. I am not against this effort. I am for this effort
>> and
>> wish to see more of it. I want to see the effort communicated
>> publicly
>> via ML and IRC meetings.  What I am against switching the default
>> undercloud method until the containerization of the undercloud has
>> the
>> appropriate test coverage and documentation to ensure it is on par
>> with what it is replacing.  Does this make sense?
>>
>> > >
>> > >  IMHO doit.sh is not acceptable as an undercloud installer and
>> > > this is what I've been trying to point out as the actual impact
>> > > to the
>> > > end user who has to use this thing.
>> >
>> >
>> > doit.sh is an example of where the effort is today. It is
>> > essentially the
>> > same stuff we document online here:
>> > http://tripleo.org/install/containers_deployment/undercloud.html.
>> >
>> > Similar to quickstart it is just something meant to help you setup
>> > a dev
>> > environment.
>> >
>>
>> Right, providing something that the non-developer uses vs providing
>> something for hacking are two separate things. Making it consumable
>> by
>> the end user (not developer) is what I'm pointing out that needs to
>> be
>> accounted for.  This is a recurring theme that I have pushed for in
>> OpenStack to ensure that the operator (actual end user) is accounted
>> for when making decisions.  Tripleo has not done a good job of this
>> either.  Sure the referenced documentation works for the dev case,
>> but
>> probably not the actual deployer/operator case.
>
> This will come in time. What I would encourage us to do upstream is
> make as much progress on this in Queens as possible so that getting to
> the point of polishing our documentation is the focus... instead of the
> remaining work.
>
> And to be clear all of this work advocates for the Operator just as
> much as it does for the developer. No regressions, improved Ansible
> feedback on the CLI, potential for future features around multitude and
>  alignment of the architecture around containers. Boom! I think
> operators will like all of this. We can and will document it.
>
>>   There needs to be a
>> migration guide or documentation of old configuration -> new
>> configuration for the people who are familiar with non-containerized
>> undercloud vs containerized undercloud.  Do we have all the use cases
>> accounted for etc. etc. This is the part that I don't think we have
>> figured out and which is what I'm asking that we make sure we account
>> for with this.
>
> The use case is the replace instack-undercloud with no feature
> regressions.
>
>>
>> > >
>> > > We have an established
>> > > installation method for the undercloud, that while isn't great,
>> > > isn't
>> > > a bash script with git fetches, etc.  So as for the
>> > > implementation,
>> > > this is what I want to see properly flushed out prior to
>> > > accepting
>> > > this feature as complete for Queens (and the new default).
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course the feature would need to prove itself before it becomes
>> > the new
>> > default Undercloud. I'm trying to build consensus and get the team
>> > focused
>> > on these things.
>> >
>> > What strikes me as odd is your earlier comment about " I want to
>> > make sure
>> > we're not just doing more work because we as developers think it's
>> > a good
>> > idea." I'm a developer and I do think this is a good idea. Please
>> > don't try
>> > to de-motivate this effort just because you happen to believe this.
>> > It was
>> > accepted for Pike and unfortunately we didn't get enough buy in
>> > early enough
>> > to get focus on it. Now that is starting to change and just as it
>> > is you are
>> > suggesting we not keep it a priority?
>> >
>>
>> Once again, I agree and I am on board to the end goal that I think is
>> trying to be achieved by this effort. What I am currently not on
>> board
>> with is the time frame of for Queens based on concerns previously
>> mentioned.  This is not about trying to demotivating an effort. It's
>> about ensuring quality and something that is consumable by an
>> additional set of end users of the software (the operator/deployer,
>> not developer).  Given that we have not finished the overcloud
>> deployment and are still working on fixing items found for that, I
>> personally feel it's a bit early to consider switching the undercloud
>> default install to a containerized method.  That being said, I have
>> repeatedly stated that if we account for updates, upgrades, docs and
>> the operator UX there's no problems with this effort. I just don't
>> think it's realistic given current timelines (~9 weeks).
>>  Please feel
>> free to provide information/patches to the contrary.
>
> Whether this feature makes the release or not I think it is too early
> to say. What I can say is the amount of work remaining on the
> Undercloud feature is IMO a good bit less than we knocked out in the
> last release:
>
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-composable-containers-underclo
> ud
>
> And regardless of whether we make the release or not there is a huge
> value to moving the work forward now... if only to put us in a better
> position for the next release.
>
> I've been on the containers team for a while now and I'm more familiar
> with the velocity that we could handle. Let us motivate ourselves and
> give updates along the way over the next 2 months as this effort
> progresses. Please don't throw "cold water" on why you don't think we
> are going to make the release (especially as PTL, this can be quite
> harmful to the effort for some). In fact, lets just stop talking about
> Queens, and Rocky entirely. I think we can agree that this feature is a
> high priority and have people move the effort forward as much as we
> can.
>
> This *is* a very important feature. It can be fun to work on. Let those
> of us who are doing the work finish scoping it and at least have a
> chance at making progress before you throw weight against us not making
> the release months from now.
>

I'm not trying to slow you down on. I'm only trying point out that
there are specifics that must be accomplished before we can consider
something as ready and what you're asking is quite the change. It's a
reminder of deadlines and ensuring that they are met before assuming
it will make the release. Please use M2 for your planning as the
target destination.  If you can make what I have asked by M2, then
switching should not be a problem.  If we get to M2 and it's not quite
done, let's evaluate the outstanding work and see if it makes sense.

I encourage additional planning and work items to be publicized as
soon as possible.  Given that M1 is in 2 weeks, it's just a reminder
that these are the deadlines. As PTL I don't make the schedule. I'm
just reminding you that it exists[0] and needs to be taken into
consideration. I would like to remind you that we also have additional
containerization items that are necessary for the overcloud which I
think should take precedence of the undercloud containerization as the
default. Once again if you and the containerization team feel you can
make it, great let's get it done. I look forward to reviewing and
approving patches as they show up.

Thanks,
-Alex

[0] https://releases.openstack.org/queens/schedule.html

>>  I have not said
>> don't work on it.  I just want to make sure we have all the pieces in
>> place needed to consider it a proper replacement for the existing
>> undercloud installation (by M2).  If anything there's probably more
>> work that needs to be done and if we want to make it a priority to
>> happen, then it needs to be documented and communicated so folks can
>> assist as they have cycles.
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I would
>> > > like to see a plan of what features need to be added (eg. the
>> > > stuff on
>> > > the etherpad), folks assigned to do this work, and estimated
>> > > timelines.  Given that we shouldn't be making major feature
>> > > changes
>> > > after M2 (~9 weeks), I want to get an understanding of what is
>> > > realistically going to make it.  If after reviewing the initial
>> > > details we find that it's not actually going to make M2, then
>> > > let's
>> > > agree to this now rather than trying to force it in at the end.
>> >
>> >
>> > All of this is forthcoming. Those details will come in time.
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I know you've been a great proponent of the containerized
>> > > undercloud
>> > > and I agree it offers a lot more for development efforts. But I
>> > > just
>> > > want to make sure that we are getting all the feedback we can
>> > > before
>> > > continuing down this path.  Since, as you point out, a bunch of
>> > > this
>> > > work is already available for consumption by developers, I don't
>> > > see
>> > > making it the new default as a requirement for Queens unless it's
>> > > a
>> > > fully implemented and tested.  There's nothing stopping folks
>> > > from
>> > > using it now and making incremental improvements during Queens
>> > > and we
>> > > commit to making it the new default for Rocky.
>> > >
>> > > The point of this cycle was supposed to be more
>> > > stablization/getting
>> > > all the containers in place. Doing something like this seems to
>> > > go
>> > > against what we were actually trying to achieve.  I'd rather make
>> > > smaller incremental progress with your proposal being the end
>> > > goal and
>> > > agreeing that perhaps Rocky is more realistic for the default cut
>> > > over.
>> >
>> >
>> > I thought the point of this release was full containerization? And
>> > part of
>> > that is containerizing the undercloud too right?
>> >
>>
>> Not that I was aware of. Others have asked because they have not been
>> aware that it included the undercloud.  Given that we are wanting to
>> eventually look to kubernetes maybe we don't need to containerize the
>> undercloud as it may be it could be discarded with that switch.
>
> I don't think so. The whole point of the initial Undercloud work was
> that it aligns the architectures. Using Kubernetes to maintain an
> Undercloud would also be a valid approach I think. Perhaps a bit
> overkill but it would be a super useful dev environment tool to develop
>  Kubernetes services on regardless.
>
> And again, there are no plans to containerize instack-undercloud
> components as is. I think we have agreement that using containers in
> the Undercloud is a high priority and we need to move this effort
> forwards.
>
>> That's probably a longer discussion. It might need to be researched
>> which is why it's important to understand why we're doing the
>> containerization effort and what exactly it entails.  Given that I
>> don't think we're looking to deploy kubernetes via
>> THT/tripleo-puppet/containers, I wonder what impact this would have
>> with this effort?  That's probably a conversation for another thread.
>>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > Lastly, this isn't just a containers team thing. We've been
>> > > > using the
>> > > > undercloud_deploy architecture across many teams to help
>> > > > develop for
>> > > > almost an entire cycle now. Huge benefits. I would go as far as
>> > > > saying
>> > > > that undercloud_deploy was *the* biggest feature in Pike that
>> > > > enabled
>> > > > us to bang out a majority of the docker/service templates in
>> > > > tripleo-
>> > > > heat-templates.
>> > > >
>> > > > >  Given that etherpad
>> > > > > appears to contain a pretty big list of features, are we
>> > > > > going to be
>> > > > > able to land all of them by M2?  Would it be beneficial to
>> > > > > craft a
>> > > > > basic spec related to this to ensure we are not missing
>> > > > > additional
>> > > > > things?
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm not sure there is a lot of value in creating a spec at this
>> > > > point.
>> > > > We've already got an approved blueprint for the feature in Pike
>> > > > here: h
>> > > > ttps://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/containerized-
>> > > > undercloud
>> > > >
>> > > > I think we might get more velocity out of grooming the etherpad
>> > > > and
>> > > > perhaps dividing this work among the appropriate teams.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > That's fine, but I would like to see additional efforts made to
>> > > organize this work, assign folks and add proper timelines.
>> > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Benefits of this work:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >  -Alignment: aligning the undercloud and overcloud
>> > > > > > installers gets
>> > > > > > rid
>> > > > > > of dual maintenance of services.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I like reusing existing stuff. +1
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >  -Composability: tripleo-heat-templates and our new Ansible
>> > > > > > architecture around it are composable. This means any set
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > services
>> > > > > > can be used to build up your own undercloud. In other words
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > framework here isn't just useful for "underclouds". It is
>> > > > > > really
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > ability to deploy Tripleo on a single node with no external
>> > > > > > dependencies. Single node TripleO installer. The containers
>> > > > > > team
>> > > > > > has
>> > > > > > already been leveraging existing (experimental)
>> > > > > > undercloud_deploy
>> > > > > > installer to develop services for Pike.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Is this something that is actually being asked for or is this
>> > > > > just an
>> > > > > added bonus because it allows developers to reduce what is
>> > > > > actually
>> > > > > being deployed for testing?
>> > > >
>> > > > There is an implied ask for this feature when a new developer
>> > > > starts to
>> > > > use TripleO. Right now resource bar is quite high for TripleO.
>> > > > You have
>> > > > to have a multi-node development environment at the very least
>> > > > (one
>> > > > undercloud node, and one overcloud node). The ideas we are
>> > > > talking
>> > > > about here short circuits this in many cases... where if you
>> > > > aren't
>> > > > testing HA services or Ironic you could simple use
>> > > > undercloud_deploy to
>> > > > test tripleo-heat-template changes on a single VM. Less
>> > > > resources, and
>> > > > much less time spent learning and waiting.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > IMHO I don't think the undercloud install is the limiting factor
>> > > for
>> > > new developers and I'm not sure this is actually reducing that
>> > > complexity.  It does reduce the amount of hardware needed to
>> > > develop
>> > > some items, but there's a cost in complexity by moving the
>> > > configuration to THT which is already where many people
>> > > struggle.  As
>> > > I previously mentioned, there's nothing stopping us from
>> > > promoting the
>> > > containerized undercloud as a development tool and ensuring it's
>> > > full
>> > > featured before switching to it as the default at a later date.
>> >
>> >
>> > Because the new undercloud_deploy installer uses t-h-t we get
>> > containers for
>> > free. Additionally as we convert over to Ansible instead of Heat
>> > software
>> > deployments we also get better operator feedback there as well.
>> > Woudn't it
>> > be nice to have an Undercloud installer driven by Ansible instead
>> > of Python
>> > and tripleo-image-elements?
>>
>> Yup, and once again I recognize this as a benefit.
>>
>> >
>> > The reason I linked in doit.sh above (and if you actually go and
>> > look at the
>> > recent patches) we are already wiring these things up right now
>> > (before M1!)
>> > and it looks really nice. As we eventually move away from Puppet
>> > for
>> > configuration that too goes away. So I think the idea here is a
>> > net-reduction in complexity because we no longer have to maintain
>> > instack-undercloud, puppet modules, and elements.
>> >
>> > It isn't that the undercloud install is a limiting factor. It is
>> > that the
>> > set of services making up your "Undercloud" can be anything you
>> > want because
>> > t-h-t supports all of our services. Anything you want with minimal
>> > t-h-t,
>> > Ansible, and containers. This means you can effectively develop on
>> > a single
>> > node for many cases and it will just work in a multi-node Overcloud
>> > setup
>> > too because we have the same architecture.
>> >
>>
>> My concern is making sure we aren't moving too fast and introducing
>> more regressions/bugs/missing use cases/etc. My hope is by
>> documenting
>> all of this, ensuring we have proper expectations around a definition
>> of done (and time frames), and allowing for additional review, we
>> will
>> reduce the risk introduced by this switch.  These types of things
>> align with what we talked about at the PTG in during the retro[0]
>> (see: start define definition of done,  start status reporting on ML,
>> stop over committing, stop big change without tests, less complexity,
>> etc, etc).  This stuff's complicated, let's make sure we do it right.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> [0] http://people.redhat.com/aschultz/denver-ptg/tripleo-ptg-retro.jp
>> g
>>
>> > Dan
>> >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >  -Development: The containerized undercloud is a great
>> > > > > > development
>> > > > > > tool. It utilizes the same framework as the full overcloud
>> > > > > > deployment
>> > > > > > but takes about 20 minutes to deploy.  This means faster
>> > > > > > iterations,
>> > > > > > less waiting, and more testing.  Having this be a first
>> > > > > > class
>> > > > > > citizen
>> > > > > > in the ecosystem will ensure this platform is functioning
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > developers to use all the time.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Seems to go with the previous question about the re-usability
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > people who are not developers.  Has everyone (including non-
>> > > > > container
>> > > > > folks) tried this out and attest that it's a better workflow
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > them?
>> > > > >  Are there use cases that are made worse by switching?
>> > > >
>> > > > I would let other chime in but the feedback I've gotten has
>> > > > mostly been
>> > > >  that it improves the dev/test cycle greatly.
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >  -CI resources: better use of CI resources. At the PTG we
>> > > > > > received
>> > > > > > feedback from the OpenStack infrastructure team that our
>> > > > > > upstream
>> > > > > > CI
>> > > > > > resource usage is quite high at times (even as high as 50%
>> > > > > > of the
>> > > > > > total). Because of the shared framework and single node
>> > > > > > capabilities we
>> > > > > > can re-architecture much of our upstream CI matrix around
>> > > > > > single
>> > > > > > node.
>> > > > > > We no longer require multinode jobs to be able to test many
>> > > > > > of the
>> > > > > > services in tripleo-heat-templates... we can just use a
>> > > > > > single
>> > > > > > cloud VM
>> > > > > > instead. We'll still want multinode undercloud -> overcloud
>> > > > > > jobs
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > testing things like HA and baremetal provisioning. But we
>> > > > > > can cover
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > large set of the services (in particular many of the new
>> > > > > > scenario
>> > > > > > jobs
>> > > > > > we added in Pike) with single node CI test runs in much
>> > > > > > less time.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I like this idea but would like to see more details around
>> > > > > this.
>> > > > > Since this is a new feature we need to make sure that we are
>> > > > > properly
>> > > > > covering the containerized undercloud with CI as well.  I
>> > > > > think we
>> > > > > need 3 jobs to properly cover this feature before marking it
>> > > > > done. I
>> > > > > added them to the etherpad but I think we need to ensure the
>> > > > > following
>> > > > > 3 jobs are defined and voting by M2 to consider actually
>> > > > > switching
>> > > > > from the current instack-undercloud installation to the
>> > > > > containerized
>> > > > > version.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1) undercloud-containers - a containerized install, should be
>> > > > > voting
>> > > > > by m1
>> > > > > 2) undercloud-containers-update - minor updates run on
>> > > > > containerized
>> > > > > underclouds, should be voting by m2
>> > > > > 3) undercloud-containers-upgrade - major upgrade from
>> > > > > non-containerized to containerized undercloud, should be
>> > > > > voting by
>> > > > > m2.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If we have these jobs, is there anything we can drop or mark
>> > > > > as
>> > > > > covered that is currently being covered by an overcloud job?
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > > Can you please comment on these expectations as being
>> > > achievable?  If
>> > > they are not achievable, I don't think we can agree to switch the
>> > > default for Queens.  As we shipped the 'undercloud deploy' as
>> > > experimental for Pike, it's well within reason to continue to do
>> > > so
>> > > for Queens. Perhaps we change the labeling to beta or working it
>> > > into
>> > > a --containerized option for 'undercloud install'.
>> > >
>> > > I think my ask for the undercloud-containers job as non-voting by
>> > > m1
>> > > is achievable today because it's currently green (pending any
>> > > zuul
>> > > freezes). My concern is really minor updates and upgrades need to
>> > > be
>> > > understood and accounted for ASAP.  If we're truly able to reuse
>> > > some
>> > > of the work we did for O->P upgrades, then these should be fairly
>> > > straight forward things to accomplish and there would be fewer
>> > > blockers to make the switch.
>> > >
>> > > > > >  -Containers: There are no plans to containerize the
>> > > > > > existing
>> > > > > > instack-
>> > > > > > undercloud work. By moving our undercloud installer to a
>> > > > > > tripleo-
>> > > > > > heat-
>> > > > > > templates and Ansible architecture we can leverage
>> > > > > > containers.
>> > > > > > Interestingly, the same installer also supports baremetal
>> > > > > > (package)
>> > > > > > installation as well at this point. Like to overcloud
>> > > > > > however I
>> > > > > > think
>> > > > > > making containers our undercloud default would better align
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > TripleO
>> > > > > > tooling.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We are actively working through a few issues with the
>> > > > > > deployment
>> > > > > > framework Ansible effort to fully integrate that into the
>> > > > > > undercloud
>> > > > > > installer. We are also reaching out to other teams like the
>> > > > > > UI and
>> > > > > > Security folks to coordinate the efforts around those
>> > > > > > components.
>> > > > > > If
>> > > > > > there are any questions about the effort or you'd like to
>> > > > > > be
>> > > > > > involved
>> > > > > > in the implementation let us know. Stay tuned for more
>> > > > > > specific
>> > > > > > updates
>> > > > > > as we organize to get as much of this in M1 and M2 as
>> > > > > > possible.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I would like to see weekly updates on this effort during the
>> > > > > IRC
>> > > > > meeting. As previously mentioned around squad status, I'll be
>> > > > > asking
>> > > > > for them during the meeting so it would be nice to get an
>> > > > > update this
>> > > > > on a weekly basis so we can make sure that we'll be OK to cut
>> > > > > over.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Also what does the cut over plan look like?  This is
>> > > > > something that
>> > > > > might be beneficial to have in a spec. IMHO, I'm ok to
>> > > > > continue
>> > > > > pushing the container effort using the openstack undercloud
>> > > > > deploy
>> > > > > method for now. Once we have voting CI jobs and the feature
>> > > > > list has
>> > > > > been covered then we can evaluate if we've made the M2 time
>> > > > > frame to
>> > > > > switching openstack undercloud deploy to be the new
>> > > > > undercloud
>> > > > > install.  I want to make sure we don't introduce regressions
>> > > > > and are
>> > > > > doing thing in a user friendly fashion since the undercloud
>> > > > > is the
>> > > > > first intro an end user gets to tripleo. It would be a good
>> > > > > idea to
>> > > > > review what the new install process looks like and make sure
>> > > > > it "just
>> > > > > works" given that the current process[0] (with all it's
>> > > > > flaws) is
>> > > > > fairly trivial to perform.
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > > Basically what I would like to see before making this new default
>> > > is:
>> > > 1) minor updates work (with CI)
>> > > 2) P->Q upgrades work (with CI)
>> > > 3) Documentation complete
>> > > 4) no UX impact for installation (eg. how they installed it
>> > > before is
>> > > the same as they install it now for containers)
>> > >
>> > > If these are accounted for and completed before M2 then I would
>> > > be +2
>> > > on the switch.
>> > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > -Alex
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [0] https://docs.openstack.org/tripleo-docs/latest/install/in
>> > > > > stallati
>> > > > > on/installation.html#installing-the-undercloud
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On behalf of the containers team,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Dan
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-queens-undercl
>> > > > > > oud-cont
>> > > > > > aine
>> > > > > > rs
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > ___________________________________________________________
>> > > > > > ________
>> > > > > > _______
>> > > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>> > > > > > questions)
>> > > > > > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subj
>> > > > > > ect:unsu
>> > > > > > bscribe
>> > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensta
>> > > > > > ck-dev
>> > > > >
>> > > > > _____________________________________________________________
>> > > > > ________
>> > > > > _____
>> > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > > > > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subjec
>> > > > > t:unsubs
>> > > > > cribe
>> > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>> > > > > -dev
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________________________
>> > > > ___________
>> > > > 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-d
>> > > > ev
>> > >
>> > > _________________________________________________________________
>> > > _________
>> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:un
>> > > subscribe
>> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___________________________________________________________________
>> > _______
>> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsu
>> > bscribe
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _____
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubs
>> cribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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