Open Stack

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Fifield" <tom at openstack.org>
> To: openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:34:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-docs] Linking to external install guides
> 
> On 10/07/13 00:48, Steve Gordon wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Lorin Hochstein" <lorin at nimbisservices.com>
> >> To: "Steve Gordon" <sgordon at redhat.com>
> >> Cc: "Anne Gentle" <annegentle at justwriteclick.com>,
> >> openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 10:38:26 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Openstack-docs] Linking to external install guides
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "Anne Gentle" <annegentle at justwriteclick.com>
> >>>> To: "Lorin Hochstein" <lorin at nimbisservices.com>
> >>>> Cc: openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> >>>> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 11:03:05 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Openstack-docs] Linking to external install guides
> >>>>
> >>>> So, for the last few releases, I would update
> >>>> http://www.openstack.org/software/start/ with links to the downstream
> >>>> deployment documentation. It was natural at the time.
> >>>>
> >>>> What has changed as of last week is that documentation is now an
> >>>> official
> >>>> "Program" and we'll need to propose the goals for the documentation and
> >>>> make a scope for release docs. To me, this change means we should be
> >>>> more
> >>>> tight and targeted with our install docs as they'll be part of the
> >>>> integrated release.
> >>>
> >>> Downstream deployment materials tend to cover arguably more streamlined
> >>> approaches to deployment, such as Foreman, PackStack, Ansible, JuJu, etc.
> >>> The flip side however is these deployment methods are not considered part
> >>> of OpenStack itself and may not in fact be ready to deploy a new release
> >>> on
> >>> day dot. These approaches also don't necessarily have 1:1 equivalents
> >>> across distributions.
> >>>
> >>> For these reasons my feeling is the documentation "program" should be
> >>> concentrated on delivering accurate manual installation steps at release
> >>> time in a consolidated installation guide as suggested in the restructure
> >>> blueprint [1]. I don't think however this precludes also linking the
> >>> distribution specific materials somewhere as they become available, it
> >>> just
> >>> wouldn't be a blocker to the integrated release?
> >>>
> >>> -Steve
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprint-restructure-documentation
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> At the last design summit, we talked about the doc team no longer
> >> maintaining any install documentation at all going forward, leaving that
> >> entirely to downstream projects. I really do think that's the way we
> >> should
> >> go. I'm hesitant to maintain docs on a fully manual install (i.e., from
> >> source tarballs), since we really don't want people to do that.
> >
> > Yes, I realize now I should have clarified that by "manual" I still meant
> > using packages - just without aids like those listed in my previous mail.
> > I think trying to create and maintain documentation of from source
> > installation that would potentially be even harder than this, despite the
> > (potential) issues with packaged builds lagging behind the source release.
> >
> >> It means that documentation on how to do an install won't exist until the
> >> downstream projects write these up, but since we recommend installing from
> >> downstream packages, I think that's unavoidable. Since we're seeing a lot
> >> more support for OpenStack downstream these days, I think those projects
> >> have more of an incentive to get their packages and docs ready ASAP after
> >> a
> >> release.
> >
> > My understanding is that at least RPM/DEB packages are likely to be
> > available *very* shortly after the actual release for Havana.
> 
> I'll take a bullish line, which may not necessarily be achievable:
> 
> """
> On the day that the press release for Havana is sent out, we need -by
> hook or by crook!- to have installation instructions for RHEL and
> Ubuntu, and ideally SUSE and Debian too.
> """
> 
> I'm thinking: "if you can't install the software, then it's not really a
> release, is it?". Release day is our time to shine :)

Well, another huge gap that I think exists here is if you can't upgrade from the previous release it's not really a release. Currently I think this is a huge problem regardless of installation method because the only documentation available for upgrades appears to be some per-project notes in the release notes Wiki page. A bit tangential perhaps and not sure this is really just a documentation problem but thought I would bring it up.

> So, feasibility/sanity check:
> * This is unlikely to be provided in time by our friends at RH or
> Canonical, leaving:
> Option 1: Delay the press release
> Option 2: DIY
> 
> Personally, I think Option 1 would be terrible for the community's
> "feelings", and tying OpenStack to particular product offerings is not
> something we should probably be doing :)

I've sent a query regarding build schedules for RDO on rdo-list [1]. No doubt there is package tweaking to be done but nightlies are already being built from trunk:

    http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/openstack/openstack-trunk/

Thanks,

Steve

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/rdo-list/2013-July/msg00057.html