<div dir="ltr"><div>Thanks. So based on the agreement in this thread I've pushed the change to the governance repository</div><div>to migrate tosca-parser and heat-translator to Tacker's governance.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/876012">https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/876012</a></div><div><br></div><div>I'll keep heat-core group in heat-translator-core group for now, but we can revisit this in the future.<br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 6:41 PM Yasufumi Ogawa <<a href="mailto:yasufum.o@gmail.com">yasufum.o@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 2023/02/28 3:49, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:<br>
> ---- On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 19:54:45 -0800 Takashi Kajinami wrote ---<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:38 AM Yasufumi Ogawa <a href="mailto:yasufum.o@gmail.com" target="_blank">yasufum.o@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > Hi,<br>
> ><br>
> > On 2023/02/27 10:51, Takashi Kajinami wrote:<br>
> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:18 AM Ghanshyam Mann <a href="mailto:gmann@ghanshyammann.com" target="_blank">gmann@ghanshyammann.com</a>><br>
> > > wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > >> ---- On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 18:44:14 -0800 Takashi Kajinami wrote ---<br>
> > >> > Hello,<br>
> > >> ><br>
> > >> > Currently tosca-parser is part of heat's governance, but the core<br>
> > >> reviewers of this repositorydoes not contain any active heat cores while we<br>
> > >> see multiple Tacker cores in this group.Considering the fact the project is<br>
> > >> mainly maintained by Tacker cores, I'm wondering if we canmigrate this<br>
> > >> repository to Tacker's governance. Most of the current heat cores are not<br>
> > >> quitefamiliar with the codes in this repository, and if Tacker team is not<br>
> > >> interested in maintainingthis repository then I'd propose retiring this.<br>
> > As you mentioned, tacker still using tosca-parser and heat-translator.<br>
> ><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> I think it makes sense and I remember its usage/maintenance by the Tacker<br>
> > >> team since starting.<br>
> > >> But let's wait for the Tacker team opinion and accordingly you can propose<br>
> > >> the governance patch.<br>
> > Although I've not joined to tacker team since starting, it might not be<br>
> > true because there was no cores of tosca-parser and heat-translator in<br>
> > tacker team. We've started to help maintenance the projects because no<br>
> > other active contributer.<br>
> ><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> ><br>
> > >> > Similarly, we have heat-translator project which has both heat cores<br>
> > >> and tacker cores as itscore reviewers. IIUC this is tightly related to the<br>
> > >> work in tosca-parser, I'm wondering it makesmore sense to move this project<br>
> > >> to Tacker, because the requirement is mostly made fromTacker side rather<br>
> > >> than Heat side.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> I am not sure about this and from the name, it seems like more of a heat<br>
> > >> thing but it is not got beyond the Tosca template<br>
> > >> conversion. Are there no users of it outside of the Tacker service? or any<br>
> > >> request to support more template conversions than<br>
> > >> Tosca?<br>
> > >><br>
> > ><br>
> > > Current hea-translator supports only the TOSCA template[1].<br>
> > > The heat-translator project can be a generic template converter by its<br>
> > > nature but we haven't seen any interest<br>
> > > in implementing support for different template formats.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > [1]<br>
> > > <a href="https://github.com/openstack/heat-translator/blob/master/translator/osc/v1/translate.py#L49" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/openstack/heat-translator/blob/master/translator/osc/v1/translate.py#L49</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > >> If no other user or use case then I think one option can be to merge it<br>
> > >> into Tosca-parser itself and retire heat-translator.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Opinion?<br>
> > Hmm, as a core of tosca-parser, I'm not sure it's a good idea because it<br>
> > is just a parser TOSCA and independent from heat-translator. In<br>
> > addition, there is no experts of Heat or HOT in current tacker team<br>
> > actually, so it might be difficult to maintain heat-translator without<br>
> > any help from heat team.<br>
> ><br>
> > 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.<br>
> ><br>
> > [1] <a href="https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/heat-translator-tosca%5B2%5D" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/heat-translator-tosca[2]</a> <a href="https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/211204" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/211204</a><br>
> > 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.<br>
> ><br>
> > By the way, may I ask what will be happened if the governance is move on<br>
> > to tacker? Is there any extra tasks for maintenance?<br>
> ><br>
> > TC would have better (and more precise) explanation but my understanding is that - creating a release<br>
> > - maintaining stable branches<br>
> > - maintaining gate healthwould be the required tasks along with moderating dev discussion in mailing list/PTG/etc.<br>
> <br>
> I think you covered all and the Core team (Tacker members) might be already doing a few of the tasks. From the<br>
> governance perspective, tacker PTL will be the point of contact for this repo in the case repo becomes inactive or so<br>
> but it will be the project team's decision to merge/split things whatever way makes maintenance easy.<br>
I understand. I've shared the proposal again in the previous meeting and <br>
no objection raised. So, we'd agree to move the governance as Tacker team.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Yasufumi<br>
> <br>
> -gmann<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> > Thanks,<br>
> > Yasufumi<br>
> ><br>
> > >><br>
> > ><br>
> > > That also sounds good to me.<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > >> Also, correcting the email subject tag as [tc].<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> -gmann<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> ><br>
> > >> > [1]<br>
> > >> <a href="https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/1f7855baf3cf14fedf72e443eef18d844bcd43fa,members%5B2%5D" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/1f7855baf3cf14fedf72e443eef18d844bcd43fa,members[2]</a><br>
> > >> <a href="https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/66028971dcbb58add6f0e7c17ac72643c4826956,members" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/66028971dcbb58add6f0e7c17ac72643c4826956,members</a><br>
> > >> > Thank you,Takashi<br>
> > >> ><br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>