Open Stack

On 2023/02/28 3:49, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
>   ---- On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 19:54:45 -0800  Takashi Kajinami  wrote ---
>   >
>   >
>   > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:38 AM Yasufumi Ogawa yasufum.o at gmail.com> wrote:
>   > Hi,
>   >
>   > On 2023/02/27 10:51, Takashi Kajinami wrote:
>   > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:18 AM Ghanshyam Mann gmann at ghanshyammann.com>
>   > > wrote:
>   > >
>   > >>   ---- On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 18:44:14 -0800  Takashi Kajinami  wrote ---
>   > >>   > Hello,
>   > >>   >
>   > >>   > Currently tosca-parser is part of heat's governance, but the core
>   > >> reviewers of this repositorydoes not contain any active heat cores while we
>   > >> see multiple Tacker cores in this group.Considering the fact the project is
>   > >> mainly maintained by Tacker cores, I'm wondering if we canmigrate this
>   > >> repository to Tacker's governance. Most of the current heat cores are not
>   > >> quitefamiliar with the codes in this repository, and if Tacker team is not
>   > >> interested in maintainingthis repository then I'd propose retiring this.
>   > As you mentioned, tacker still using tosca-parser and heat-translator.
>   >
>   > >>
>   > >> I think it makes sense and I remember its usage/maintenance by the Tacker
>   > >> team since starting.
>   > >> But let's wait for the Tacker team opinion and accordingly you can propose
>   > >> the governance patch.
>   > Although I've not joined to tacker team since starting, it might not be
>   > true because there was no cores of tosca-parser and heat-translator in
>   > tacker team. We've started to help maintenance the projects because no
>   > other active contributer.
>   >
>   > >>
>   > >>   >
>   > >>   > Similarly, we have heat-translator project which has both heat cores
>   > >> and tacker cores as itscore reviewers. IIUC this is tightly related to the
>   > >> work in tosca-parser, I'm wondering it makesmore sense to move this project
>   > >> to Tacker, because the requirement is mostly made fromTacker side rather
>   > >> than Heat side.
>   > >>
>   > >> I am not sure about this and from the name, it seems like more of a heat
>   > >> thing but it is not got beyond the Tosca template
>   > >> conversion. Are there no users of it outside of the Tacker service? or any
>   > >> request to support more template conversions than
>   > >> Tosca?
>   > >>
>   > >
>   > > Current hea-translator supports only the TOSCA template[1].
>   > > The heat-translator project can be a generic template converter by its
>   > > nature but we haven't seen any interest
>   > > in implementing support for different template formats.
>   > >
>   > > [1]
>   > > https://github.com/openstack/heat-translator/blob/master/translator/osc/v1/translate.py#L49
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >> If no other user or use case then I think one option can be to merge it
>   > >> into Tosca-parser itself and retire heat-translator.
>   > >>
>   > >> Opinion?
>   > Hmm, as a core of tosca-parser, I'm not sure it's a good idea because it
>   > is just a parser TOSCA and independent from heat-translator. In
>   > addition, there is no experts of Heat or HOT in current tacker team
>   > actually, so it might be difficult to maintain heat-translator without
>   > any help from heat team.
>   >
>   > The hea-translator project was initially created to implement a translator from TOSCA parser to HOT[1].Later tosca-parser was split out[2] but we have never increased scope of tosca-parser. So it has beenno more than the TOSCA template translator.
>   >
>   > [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/heat-translator-tosca[2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/211204
>   > We (Heat team) can provide help with any problems with heat, but we own no actual use case of template translation.Maintaining the heat-translator repository with tacker, which currently provides actual use cases would make more sense.This also gives the benefit that Tacker team can decide when stable branches of heat-translator should be retiredalong with the other Tacker repos.
>   >
>   > By the way, may I ask what will be happened if the governance is move on
>   > to tacker? Is there any extra tasks for maintenance?
>   >
>   > TC would have better (and more precise) explanation but my understanding is that - creating a release
>   >  - maintaining stable branches
>   >  - maintaining gate healthwould be the required tasks along with moderating dev discussion in mailing list/PTG/etc.
> 
> I think you covered all and the Core team (Tacker members)  might be already doing a few of the tasks. From the
> governance perspective, tacker PTL will be the point of contact for this repo in the case repo becomes inactive or so
> but it will be the project team's decision to merge/split things whatever way makes maintenance easy.
I understand. I've shared the proposal again in the previous meeting and 
no objection raised. So, we'd agree to move the governance as Tacker team.

Thanks,
Yasufumi
> 
> -gmann
> 
> 
>   >  Thanks,
>   > Yasufumi
>   >
>   > >>
>   > >
>   > > That also sounds good to me.
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >> Also, correcting the email subject tag as [tc].
>   > >>
>   > >> -gmann
>   > >>
>   > >>   >
>   > >>   > [1]
>   > >> https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/1f7855baf3cf14fedf72e443eef18d844bcd43fa,members[2]
>   > >> https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/66028971dcbb58add6f0e7c17ac72643c4826956,members
>   > >>   > Thank you,Takashi
>   > >>   >
>   > >>
>   > >>
>   > >
>   >
>   >