[tc] [ironic] Promoting ironic to a top-level opendev project?

Bogdan Dobrelya bdobreli at redhat.com
Mon Apr 6 08:15:59 UTC 2020

On 06.04.2020 09:51, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:48 AM Lingxian Kong <anlin.kong at gmail.com 
> <mailto:anlin.kong at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     I see we are talking about another "Gnocchi", when Gnocchi moved out of
>     OpenStack, people said they could run Gnocchi in standalone mode without
>     installing the other OpenStack services, then they changed default
>     dependency of some other projects (Ceilometer, Panko, etc) to Gnocchi.
>     As a result, they are all dead (or almost dead).
> I'd be very careful comparing Ironic to Gnocchi/Telemetry. I think the 
> fate that Telemetry met was largely due to staffing problems, more 
> specifically, all large contributors pulling away from it. It would end 
> up the same inside or outside of OpenStack.
>     Another example is a long time ago in one OpenStack project, there was a
>     demand for secret management, people said, Barbican is not mature and
>     not production ready yet, we shouldn't dependent on Barbican but could
>     make it optional, as a result, Barbican never adopted in the project in
>     real deployment.
> I don't know much about the Barbican situation, but there may be other 
> explanations. Some operators are against deploying any new service 
> unless absolutely necessary, because any new service is a maintenance 
> burden.
> At the Denver PTG we were talking about non-Keystone authentication in 
> Ironic. Keystone is arguably very trivial to install, and still it meets 
> some resistance.
>     I have been involved in OpenStack community since 2013, I see people
>     came and left, I see projects created and died, until now, there are
>     only a few of projects alive and actively maintained. IMHO, as a
>     community, we should try our best to integrate projects with each other,
>     no project can live well without some others help, projects rarely
>     stand or fall alone.
> To be clear, my proposal does not affect this. Specifically:
> 1) I don't suggest reducing the number of integration points.

But having *more* integration points and functional duplication, like 
internal project's authorization, coordination (placement/messaging), 
shared libraries, indirectly reduce the integration points in OpenStack 
and pulls off contributors by spreading its focus on that otherwise 
would have been shipped and maintained "out of box" (or out of big 
tent). Not ranting, I understand that it is pointless to complain 
against inevitability.

> 2) Integration points with OpenStack services are already optional in 
> Ironic.
> What exactly is your concern? Ironic dropping integration points 
> altogether? We don't plan on that.
> Dmitry
>     Well, I'm not part of TC, I'm not the person or team can decide how
>     Ironic project goes in this situation. But as a developer who is trying
>     very hard to maintain several OpenStack projects, that what I'm
>     thinking.
>     My 0.02.
>     -
>     Best regards,
>     Lingxian Kong
>     Catalyst Cloud

Best regards,
Bogdan Dobrelya,
Irc #bogdando

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list