Hi Ruslan, Thanks for your feedback. I completely agree with these arguments: actually, these were the reasons why I've initiated this discussion.
Team, let's discuss this on the IRC meeting today. -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Ruslan Kamaldinov <rkamaldi...@mirantis.com > wrote: > I'd suggest to reduce number of Murano repositories for several reasons: > > * All other OpenStack projects have a single repo per project. While this > point might look like something not worth mentioning, it's really > important: > - unified project structure simplifies life for new developers. once they > get familiar with one project, they can expect something similar from > another project > - unified project structure simplifies life for deployers. similar project > structure simplifies packaging and deployment automation > > * Another important reason is to simplify gated testing. Just take a look > at > Solum layout [1], they have everything needed (contrib, functionaltests) to > run dvsm job in a single repo. One simple job definition [2] allows to > install Solum in DevStack and run Tempest tests for Solum. > > * As a side-effect, this approach will improve integrity of project > components. Having murano-common in the same repo with other components > will > help to catch integration issues earlier. > > > In an ideal world there will be only the following repos: > - murano (api, common, conductor, docs, repository, tests) > - python-muranoclient > - murano-dashboard > - murano-agent > - puppet-murano (optional, but nice to have) > > > [1] https://github.com/stackforge/solum > [2] > https://github.com/openstack-infra/config/blob/master/modules/openstack_project/files/jenkins_job_builder/config/solum.yaml > > > Thanks, > Ruslan > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Serg Melikyan <smelik...@mirantis.com>wrote: > >> Hi, Alexander, >> >> In general I am completely agree with Clint and Robert, and as one of >> contributors of Murano I don't see any practical reasons for repositories >> reorganization. And regarding of your proposal I have a few thoughts that I >> would like to share below: >> >> >This enourmous amount of repositories adds too much infrustructural >> complexity >> Creating a new repository is a quick, easy and completely automated >> procedure that requires only simple commit to Zuul configuration. All >> infrastructure related to repositories is handled by Openstack CI and >> supported by Openstack Infra Team, and actually don't require anything from >> project development team. About what infrastructure complexity you are >> talking about? >> >> >I actually think keeping them separate is a great way to make sure you >> have ongoing API stability. (c) Clint >> I would like to share a little statistic gathered by Stan Lagun >> a little time ago regarding repositories count in different PaaS solution. >> If you are concerned about large number of repositories used by Murano, you >> will be quite amused: >> >> - https://github.com/heroku - 275 >> - https://github.com/cloudfoundry - 132 >> - https://github.com/openshift - 49 >> - https://github.com/CloudifySource - 46 >> >> >First of all, I would suggest to have a single reposository for all the >> three main components of Murano: main murano API (the contents of the >> present), workflow execution engine (currently murano-conductor; also it >> was suggested to rename the component itself to murano-engine for more >> consistent naming) and metadata repository (currently murano-repository). >> >> *murano-api* and *murano-repository* have many things in common, they >> are both present HTTP API to the user, and I hope would be rewritten to >> common framework (Pecan?). But *murano-conductor* have only one thing in >> common with other two components: code shared under *murano-common*. >> That repository may be eventually eliminated by moving to Oslo (as it >> should be done). >> >> >Also, it has been suggested to move our agents (both windows and >> unified python) into the main repository as well - just to put them into a >> separate subfolder. I don't see any reasons why they should be separated >> from core Murano: I don't believe we are going to have any third-party >> implementations of our "Unified agent" proposals, while this possibility >> was the main reason for separatinng them. >> >> Main reason for murano-agent to have separate repository was not a >> possibility to have another implementation, but that all sources that >> should be able to be built as package, have tests and can be uploaded to >> PyPI (or any other gate job) should be placed in different repository. >> OpenStack CI have several rules regarding how repositories should be >> organized to support running different gate jobs. For example, to run tests >> *tox.ini* is need to be present in root directory, to build package >> *setup.py* should be present in root directory. So we could not simply >> move them to separate directories in main repository and have same >> capabilities as in separate repository. >> >> >Next, deployment scripts and auto-generated docs: are there reasons why >> they should be in their own repositories, instead of "docs" and >> "tools/deployment" folders of the primary repo? I would prefer the latter: >> docs and deployment scripts have no meaning without the sources which they >> document/deploy - so it is better to have them consistent. >> We have *developers documentation* alongside with all sources: >> murano-conductor<https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor/tree/master/doc/source>, >> murano-api<https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api/tree/master/doc/source> >> and >> so on. It is true that we have not so much documentation there, and not >> much code is documented to add auto-generated documentation. Documentation >> that is found in *murano-docs* repository actually is a docbook >> documentation, that is presented in book manner, and follows documentation >> patterns found in core projects itself: >> openstack-manuals<https://github.com/openstack/openstack-manuals/tree/master/doc> >> . >> >> *murano-deployment* contains scripts and other artefacts related to >> deployment, but not necessary to source code. This repository don't use >> much of CI capabilities, but raise it is logical place where we can place >> different thing related to deployment: various scripts, specs, patches and >> so on. Also with separate repository we can not to spam our deployment >> engineers with software engineers related commits. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Alexander Tivelkov < >> ativel...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> As we are moving towards incubation application, I took a closer look at >>> what is going on with our repositories. >>> An here is what I found. We currently have 11 repositories at stackforge: >>> >>> - murano-api >>> - murano-conductor >>> - murano-repository >>> - murano-dashboard >>> - murano-common >>> - python-muranoclient >>> - murano-metadataclient >>> - murano-agent >>> - murano-docs >>> - murano-tests >>> - murano-deployment >>> >>> This enourmous amount of repositories adds too much infrustructural >>> complexity, and maintaining the changes in in consistent and reliable >>> manner becomes a really tricky tasks. We often have changes which require >>> modifing two or more repositories - and thus we have to make several >>> changesets in gerrit, targeting different repositories. Quite often the >>> dependencies between these changesets are not obvious, the patches get >>> reviewed and approved on wrong order (yes, this also questions the quality >>> of the code review, but that is a different topic), which causes in >>> inconsostent state of the repositories. >>> >>> Well, anyway, this has to be changed in some way or another. >>> I suggest to initiate the discussions on how to do all this. >>> >>> Below you may find my position. This is not final in any meaning, just a >>> proposal. Please, feel free to discuss :) >>> >>> First of all, I would suggest to have a single reposository for all the >>> three main components of Murano: main murano API (the contents of the >>> present), workflow execution engine (currently murano-conductor; also it >>> was suggested to rename the component itself to murano-engine for more >>> consistent naming) and metadata repository (currently murano-repository). >>> These should remain as independent modules, being able to run as >>> different daemons, but stored within a single repository (similar to how >>> heat has heat-api, heat-cfn and heat-engine under the same hood). The name >>> of this repository is tentative: I think none of the existing match, so I >>> would suggest to create a new repo (simple "murano" seems to fit the best), >>> and then relocate all the content from other 3 repos and remove them >>> aftwerwards. >>> >>> When the api, the repository and the engine are merged into a single >>> repo, there will be no sense in having murano-common repo for storing their >>> common classes: instead, there should be a "common" package inside the main >>> murano repository. >>> >>> Also, it has been suggested to move our agents (both windows and unified >>> python) into the main repository as well - just to put them into a separate >>> subfolder. I don't see any reasons why they should be separated from core >>> Murano: I don't believe we are going to have any third-party >>> implementations of our "Unified agent" proposals, while this possibility >>> was the main reason for separatinng them. >>> >>> Next, deployment scripts and auto-generated docs: are there reasons why >>> they should be in their own repositories, instead of "docs" and >>> "tools/deployment" folders of the primary repo? I would prefer the latter: >>> docs and deployment scripts have no meaning without the sources which they >>> document/deploy - so it is better to have them consistent. >>> >>> >>> Then, the python bindings: "There can be only one" (c). Yes, the >>> metadata API and the main murano API are different indeed, however there is >>> no reason in having two repositories for their clients: let's have a single >>> repo, containing two packages inside. Are there any technical reasons >>> preventing us from doing that? >>> CLI should be common as well - I think there should be a single >>> command-line utility ("murano" should be the name), allowing to query both >>> APIs. This CLI will eventually evolve into the developer's utility: it will >>> get commands to package, sign and submit application packages. >>> >>> Openstack Dashboard plugin - aka Murano-dashboard - should remain in a >>> separated repo, I have no objections here :) >>> >>> murano-tests may reamin independent as well - however, this repository >>> is not likely to be transferred when we go to incubation: incubated >>> projects should have tempest test in their repositories, shoudn't they? Our >>> our test may remain on stackforge - this is irrelevant. >>> >>> And finally, we need some place to store sources of our metadata >>> objects: the definition of core murano library, as well as example >>> services, with all their stuff - metadata and ui definitions, heat >>> templates, scripts etc. Here I propose to create a new repo, specially >>> dedicated for this purpose. If we succeed in building the ecosystem for >>> application developers and publishers, this will be the repo in which they >>> should contribute, while the core murano repo's will remain relativele >>> stable. >>> >>> >>> So, this brings us to the following list of repos: >>> >>> - *murano* - main services, common, agents docs, deployments scripts >>> - *python-muranoclient* - python bindings and CLI >>> - *murano-dashboard* - OS Dashboard plugin >>> - *murano-apps* - new repo for metadata, including core library and >>> example apps. >>> - *murano-tests* - existing test-repo, not going to be transferred >>> when incubated. >>> >>> >>> This leaves us with just 4 repositories (plus one additional which will >>> remain on stackforge), with clear separation of concerns. >>> >>> There may be technical issues in doing this mergement (we do not want to >>> loose revision history, do we?), but they should be solvable (I'll write to >>> infra asking on what is possible and what is not), but in general this is >>> the direction in which we should be moving, as it seems to me. >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Alexander Tivelkov >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com >> >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 >> +7 (903) 156-0836 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev