Open Stack

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: "Nick Chase" <nchase at mirantis.com>
> > To: "Atul Jha" <Atul.Jha at csscorp.com>
> > Cc: openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org, "Shaun McCance" <
> shaunm at gnome.org>,
> > "Steve Gordon" <sgordon at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:12:06 AM
> > Subject: RE: [Openstack-docs] Linking to external install guides
>
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, we are here to document OpenStack, not all of the
> > > > independent distros, so there's no shame in removing that from our
> > > > launch day scope.
> > > >
> > > > </snip>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying we should have only announcement about new release &
> no
> > > > install instruction?
> > > >
> > > > Is it?
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > No, just the opposite. I'm saying we should have A basic, fairly
> distro-
> > > neutral set of install instructions. We Can then leave the distros to
> do
> > > their own thing.
> > >
> > > </snip>
> > >
> > > Kindly clarify. I just hope we are not putting install from source
> > > instruction i.e distro-neutral install instruction.
> > If that's that's the only true "distro neutral" way, and it's not
> desirable,
> > is there another option? Are you saying Canonical is usually caught up
> for
> > Ubuntu? I'm not suggesting any particular way, just that we provide
> enough
> > information to give people the general idea, then send them on their
> way. I
> > don't have any preferece for what that looks like.
>
> Ultimately there is no way to document deployment that is *entirely*
> distribution neutral (well, other than perhaps using something like
> devstack - maybe that is a valid approach for bare bones release day
> install documentation, I don't know?) due to the need to install and
> configure supporting infrastructure such as the database, queuing, etc. The
> difference of course is the packaging of those components is far more
> static, predictable, and most importantly available relative to the
> OpenStack packaging which most likely wont exist on 0-day, though it is
> likely to follow shortly thereafter.
>
> My concern with documenting installation from source is it seems like
> creating deployment documentation for release day and release day only. I
> would question whether users are likely to want to use this installation
> method once any form of packaging is available (and again I'm explicitly
> not talking about the more advanced stuff like Foreman, Fuel, PackStack,
> etc. - just RPMs/DEBs/etc.) - the counter argument that is being posed here
> of course is "well packaging isn't OpenStack anyway and at that point users
> should go to their distribution-specific documentation site".
>
>
In the old days, when people used to buy their software in shrink-wrapped
cardboard boxes, software vendors used to make a distinction between when
the software was ready to be shipped, and when people could actually
purchase the software. When it was ready for shipped, the would say RTM
(release to manufacturing) or "going gold".

I think the OpenStack project may need to make a similar distinction. What
we have been calling "release" is really more like "release to
manufacturing". In this case, the manufacturers are the distros that do the
packaging.

In this way, we sidestep the whole "ready for install on release day"
issue, since the release doesn't correspond with general availability.

Lorin
-- 
Lorin Hochstein
Lead Architect - Cloud Services
Nimbis Services, Inc.
www.nimbisservices.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20130714/615c4cc7/attachment.html>