Hey folks, Sam had asked a reasonable set of questions regarding a patchset: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/222893/
The purpose of the patchset is to enable both RDO and RHOS as binary choices on RHEL platforms. I suspect over time, from-source deployments have the potential to become the norm, but the business logistics of such a change are going to take some significant time to sort out. Red Hat has two distros of OpenStack neither of which are from source. One is free called RDO and the other is paid called RHOS. In order to obtain support for RHEL VMs running in an OpenStack cloud, you must be running on RHOS RPM binaries. You must also be running on RHEL. It remains to be seen whether Red Hat will actively support Kolla deployments with a RHEL+RHOS set of packaging in containers, but my hunch says they will. It is in Kolla’s best interest to implement this model and not make it hard on Operators since many of them do indeed want Red Hat’s support structure for their OpenStack deployments. Now to Sam’s questions: "Where does 'binary' fit in if we have 'rdo' and 'rhos'? How many more do we add? What's our policy on adding a new type?” I’m not immediately clear on how binary fits in. We could make binary synonymous with the community supported version (RDO) while still implementing the binary RHOS version. Note Kolla does not “support” any distribution or deployment of OpenStack – Operators will have to look to their vendors for support. As such the implied second question “How many more do we add?” sort of sounds like ‘how many do we support?”. The answer to the second question is none – again the Kolla community does not support any deployment of OpenStack. To the question as posed, how many we add, the answer is it is really up to community members willing to implement and maintain the work. In this case, I have personally stepped up to implement RHOS and maintain it going forward. Our policy on adding a new type could be simple or onerous. I prefer simple. If someone is willing to write the code and maintain it so that is stays in good working order, I see no harm in it remaining in tree. I don’t suspect there will be a lot of people interested in adding multiple distributions for a particular operating system. To my knowledge, and I could be incorrect, Red Hat is the only OpenStack company with a paid and community version available of OpenStack simultaneously and the paid version is only available on RHEL. I think the risk of RPM based distributions plus their type count spiraling out of manageability is low. Even if the risk were high, I’d prefer to keep an open mind to facilitate an increase in diversity in our community (which is already fantastically diverse, btw ;) I am open to questions, comments or concerns. Please feel free to voice them. Regards, -steve
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
