Open Stack

I've started a wiki page here, please feel free to flesh it out with more
detail:

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Packaging/GenericTooling

Looking at the OpenStack meetings page, the schedule is very packed with
Mondays being a little less loaded. How about 1500 UTC on Mondays? This
clashes with Satori and Zaqar, which I hope has minimal overlap with our
group. The #openstack-operators room would be an appropriate venue, but I
think we should move to one of the openstack meeting channels if the first
meeting proves useful and there is a desire for more. If we make our first
meeting on the 7th of December, that gives us plenty of time to list
discussion topics.

Since I'm on the wrong side of the world, would anyone like to volunteer to
lead the discussion? I have created an agenda etherpad here, again feel
free to add things :
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-operators-meeting-071214-agenda

I'd like to examine each of the tools to see which requirements they don't
satisfy, and what the shortest path to getting one that ticks every
(reasonable) box might be.

 - Michael

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Emrah Aslan <e.aslan at logicom.com.tr>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Any progress on reduce the fragmentation ?
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Emrah ASLAN
> Cisco/Citrix System Engineer
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Değerli İş Ortaklarımız,
> Logicom kampanyaları , fırsat, duyuru ve stok bilgilerinin sizlere düzenli
> ulaşması için  aşağıdaki linki tıklayarak  e-mail adresinizi güncellemenizi
> rica ediyoruz.
>
> http://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001t9egDEMH10MEulnTu-Lzln0RXbiYIgR2HnLd_hpHmPb0K44ZxJOya0FvCOF3TI8c2qeErt1Xrn3PlZqntTSqiSTW40PTK2XQ8OlOUe4qYOE%3D
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derek Higgins [mailto:derekh at redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 12:35 PM
> To: Jay Pipes; openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Operations project: Packaging
>
> On 27/11/14 15:06, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > On 11/24/2014 06:58 AM, Derek Higgins wrote:
> >> On 18/11/14 06:16, Michael Chapman wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Packaging was one of the biggest points of interest in the Friday
> >>> Paris meeting, and I'd like to use this thread to have a centralised
> >>> discussion and/or argument regarding whether there is a packaging
> >>> system that is flexible enough that we can adopt it as a community
> >>> and reduce the fragmentation. This conversation began in Paris, but
> >>> will likely continue for some time.
> >>>
> >>> The Friday session indicates that as operators we have common
> >>> requirements:
> >>>
> >>> A system that takes the sources from upstream projects and produces
> >>> artifacts (packages or images).
> >>>
> >>> There are numerous projects that have attempted to solve this problem.
> >>> Some are on stackforge, some live outside. If you are an author or a
> >>> user of one of these systems, please give your opinion.
> >>
> >> To throw another project into the mix, I've been working on building
> >> master packages with delorean[1] for a last few months(currently
> >> building for fedora but planning on adding more), the specs being
> >> uses are based off the RDO packaging.
> >>
> >> The plan we're slowly working towards will be to allow this packaging
> >> hopefully become the upstream of the RDO packaging for the released
> >> projects. We're also hoping to allow contributions from the whole RDO
> >> community via gerrithub [2].
> >>
> >> If anybody is interested the packaging we are maintaining is on
> >> github[3], with a yum repository being created for every commit into
> >> the monitored openstack projects[4]
> >>
> >> So ya count me in for any discussions happening.
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/openstack-packages/delorean
> >> [2] https://review.gerrithub.io/
> >> [3] https://github.com/openstack-packages
> >> [4] http://209.132.178.33/repos/report.html (DNS pending)
> >
> > Any reason stackforge wasn't chosen instead of another Github
> organization?
>
> While trying to figure out the process having it on a github org was an
> advantage for a number of reasons for example we started out with a small
> set of packaging repositories and added as needed, creating these is a lot
> quicker on github, adding stackforge repositories would have been slower,
> we've also renamed a couple of repositories and deleted others
>
> In future as things settle down and we get a better view of whats needed,
> I'm open to moving to stackforge.
>
> >
> > Best,
> > -jay
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
> > OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operator
> > s
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20141201/de0d0693/attachment.html>