Helen,

Thank you for your diligent work on this.

I'd like to ask a clarifying question. You say that this decision is to 
approve the integration team using the Heat template approach for the lab. 
 Of course, it is critical that you have an approach that will allow you 
to do your deployments and testing quickly so we can reach the Amsterdam 
release dates.  My question is: does the integration team's work become 
the default installation/deployment method for users of the Amsterdam 
release?  In other words, when Amsterdam is released, will Heat be the 
documented deployment method?  And is it the integration team that is 
responsible for documenting that process? 

As we've seen in the mailing list over the past several months, the 
initial OpenECOMP deployment via Heat was very time-consuming if you 
varied beyond the specified cloud environment.  I'm hopeful we can avoid 
that situation with Amsterdam, but wanted to be sure we had the right team 
to support it.  It's important that we make ONAP easy to deploy.

Thank you!


Regards,
Jason Hunt 
Executive Software Architect, IBM 

Phone: 314-749-7422
Email: djh...@us.ibm.com
Twitter: @DJHunt
 



From:   Yunxia Chen <helen.c...@huawei.com>
To:     onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>
Date:   09/20/2017 01:01 AM
Subject:        Re: [onap-tsc] [tsc]Vote: ONAP Deployment Proposal for 
Amsterdam Release
Sent by:        onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org



Update for Heat template related deployment:
We had three meetings with PLTs / key contributors of those projects, 
which have not been deployed with heat template. And we cleared out all 
technical concerns, including MSB, VFC, MultiVim, UUI, and we reached the 
consensus to finish all related work before M4.
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+Installation+Strategy+for+Release+A
 
Regards,
 
Helen Chen
 
From: Helen Chen 00725961 <helen.c...@huawei.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM
To: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] [tsc]Vote: ONAP Deployment Proposal for Amsterdam 
Release
 
Sorry for some confusion here. Let me make two clarification:
1.  This is for “ONAP TSC Voting Member” to vote
2.  This is asking TSC Voting member to approve that integration team will 
use Heat template for deploying three approved use cases, and main tools 
in Integration lab, in ONAP Amsterdam release, not vote OOM be out of ONAP 
Amsterdam release. Therefore we could prioritize our resource for 
integration testing. And OOM will be our solution for Beijing release.
Let me re-phrase the voting sentence: 
Dear ONAP TSC Voting Members, please send your email vote for “whether you 
approve using Heat template as ONAP platform gating deployment strategy in 
Amsterdam Release”, options are:
+1: approve
0: no opinion
-1: disapprove
 
Due: 9/20/2017, 6:00PM PDT
Kenny, please help us collect the result.
 
Regards,
 
Helen Chen
 
Original Mail
Sender:  <helen.c...@huawei.com>;
To:  <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>;
Date: 2017/09/19 08:03
Subject: [onap-tsc] [tsc]Vote: ONAP Deployment Proposal for Amsterdam 
Release
 
Dear ONAP TSC Members,
We had several discussion sessions regarding “Heat template vs OOM” with 
PTLs, a lot of emails follow ups in past 4+ weeks, and we also tested OOM 
and Heat template in Integration lab in past two weeks. Here  are our 
conclusions:
Heat template deployment is more mature than OOM with Kubernetes at this 
moment
Most of the OpenECOMP projects have done integration test with Heat 
template while Kubernetes based has not done any
PTLs / key developers feel less comfortable to “learn” a new tool at this 
time
Based on above reasons, Integration team recommends to use Heat template 
as ONAP platform deployment strategy in Amsterdam Release.
Please send your email vote for “whether you approve using Heat template 
as ONAP platform deployment strategy in Amsterdam Release”, options are:
+1: approve
0: no opinion
-1: disapprove
 Due: 9/20/2017, 6:00PM PDT.
Kenny, please help us collect the result. The result will impact our 
integration testing priority and integration lab resource allocation 
priority.
Regards,
Helen Chen
 
 
_______________________________________________
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=KSR6PrsZRiEmjmaij5MmjZycgerqLf-CNiNMJg6x4WU&s=JqX3STNDf0aFULBkDOCsgxS0u2W7xLmRl2Sr0OjfPzs&e=
 

 _______________________________________________
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=oMOO2HmZ8JJWvUc1M7SklmdX3xn2mSb9tP9VrdTjcqg&m=kToORYsjn0OWGm8aKi_N3tC4yYsNjNfVOU1TBF4pOTY&s=vBbDSCGF-sPjjgY1FYbyJXXki-z7uKEpVnidN7pvwgk&e=
 





_______________________________________________
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Reply via email to