Hi, Adding [oslo] tag for more visibility.
On 01/19/2016 05:01 AM, Xingchao Yu wrote: > Hi, all: > > Recently I submit some patches for adding rabbit_ha_queues and > correct the section name of memcached_servers params to each modules, > then I find I just did repeated things: > > 1. Adding one parameters which related to oslo.* or authtoken to > all puppet modules > 2. Correct section of parameters, move it from deprecated section > to oslo_* section, apply it on all puppet modules > > We have more than 30+ modules for now, that means we have to repeat > 10+ or 20+ times if we want to do a simple change on oslo_* common configs. > > Besides, the number of oslo_* section is growing, for example : > > - oslo_messaging_amqp > - oslo_messaging_rabbit > - oslo_middleware > - oslo_policy > - oslo_concurrency > - oslo_versionedobjects > ... > > Now we maintain these oslo_* parameters separately in each modules, > this has lead some problems: > > 1. oslo_* params are inconsistent in each modules > 2. common params explosion in each modules > 3. no convenient way for managing oslo_* params > > When I was doing some work on keystone::resource::authtoken > (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/266723/) > > Then I have a idea about adding puppet-oslo project, using a bunch > of define resources to unify oslo_* configs in each modules. > > I just write a prototype to show how does it works with oslo.cache: > > https://github.com/NewpTone/puppet-oslo/blob/master/manifests/cache.pp > > Please let me know your opinion on the same. We already talked about this topics during Vancouver Summit: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-summit-design-puppet Real output is documented here: http://my1.fr/blog/puppet-openstack-plans-for-liberty/ And I already initiated some code 8 months ago: https://github.com/redhat-cip/puppet-oslo At this time, we decided not to go this way because some OpenStack projects were not using the same version of oslo.*. sometimes. So it could have lead to something like: "nova using newest version of oslo messaging parameters comparing to murano" (that's an example, probably wrong...), so puppet-oslo would have been risky to use here. I would like to know from Oslo folks if we can safely configure Oslo projects the same way during a cycle (Ex: Mitaka, then N, etc) or if some projects are using too old versions of Oslo that makes impossible a consistent configuration across all OpenStack projects. So indeed, I'm still convinced this topic should be brought alive again. We would need to investigate with Oslo team if it makes sense and if we can safely do that for all our modules. If we have positive feedback, we can create the new module and refactorize our modules that will consume puppet-oslo. It will help a lot in keeping our modules consistent and eventually drop a lot of duplicated code. Thoughts? > > Thanks & Regards. > > -- > Xingchao Yu > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Emilien Macchi
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
