Open Stack

On Wed, Jun 20 2018, Bedyk, Witold wrote:

Hi Witek,

It's not a transparency issue. It's a manpower issue. We are only 2
developers active on Ceilometer: me and Mehdi. Neither me nor Mehdi
wants to maintain Monasca stuff; meaning, we don't want to spend time
reviewing patches, having bug opened, or whatever. There's no interest
for us in that.

THe Prometheus publisher you mention has been written by Mehdi and we've
approved it because it fits the roadmap of the Ceilometer developers
that we are — and, again we're just two.

We have other projects — such as Panko — that provide Ceilometer
publishers and their code is in Panko, not in Ceilometer. It's totally
possible and sane.

Now, if you really, really, care that much about Ceilometer and its
integration with Monasca, and if you have an amazing roadmap that'll
make Ceilometer better and awesome, please, do start with that.

Right now it just looks like more work for us with no gain. :(

> could you please add some transparency to the decision process on which
> publishers are acceptable and which not? Just two months ago you have added new
> Prometheus publisher. That's around the same time when our code was submitted
> to review.
>
> We have delivered tested code and offer its maintenance. The code is
> self-contained and does not touch Ceilometer core. If it's broken, just Monasca
> interface won't work.
>
> Please reconsider it again.
>
> Greetings
> Witek
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Julien Danjou <julien at danjou.info>
>> Sent: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2018 14:07
>> To: Bedyk, Witold <witold.bedyk at est.fujitsu.com>
>> Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [telemetry][ceilometer][monasca] Monasca
>> publisher for Ceilometer
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 20 2018, Bedyk, Witold wrote:
>> 
>> Same as Gordon. You should maintain that in your own repo.
>> There's just no bandwidth in Ceilometer right now for things like that.
>> :(
>> 
>> > Hello Telemetry Team,
>> >
>> > any opinion on this?
>> >
>> > Best greetings
>> > Witek
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Bedyk, Witold <witold.bedyk at est.fujitsu.com>
>> >> Sent: Mittwoch, 13. Juni 2018 10:28
>> >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> >> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> >> Subject: [openstack-dev] [telemetry][ceilometer][monasca] Monasca
>> >> publisher for Ceilometer
>> >>
>> >> Hello Telemetry Team,
>> >>
>> >> We would like to contribute a Monasca publisher to Ceilometer project
>> >> [1] and add it to the list of currently supported transports [2].
>> >> The goal of the plugin is to send Ceilometer samples to Monasca API.
>> >>
>> >> I understand Gordon's concerns about adding maintenance overhead for
>> >> Ceilometer team which he expressed in review but the code is pretty
>> >> much self-contained and does not affect Ceilometer core. It's not our
>> >> intention to shift the maintenance effort and Monasca team should
>> >> still be responsible for this code.
>> >>
>> >> Adding this plugin will help in terms of interoperability of both
>> >> projects and can be useful for wider parts of the OpenStack community.
>> >>
>> >> Please let me know your thoughts. I hope we can get this code merged.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Witek
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [1] https://review.openstack.org/562400
>> >> [2]
>> >> https://docs.openstack.org/ceilometer/latest/contributor/architecture
>> >> .html
>> >> #processing-the-data
>> >
>> 
>> --
>> Julien Danjou
>> /* Free Software hacker
>>    https://julien.danjou.info */
>
>

-- 
Julien Danjou
;; Free Software hacker
;; https://julien.danjou.info
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20180620/0b3fe31a/attachment-0001.sig>