On 3/22/16, 2:15 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thie...@openstack.org> wrote:
>Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: >> Technical Committee, >> >> Please accept my proposal of a new type of project called a deployment >> [1]. If people donĀ¹t like the type name, we can change it. The basic >> idea is there are a class of projects unrepresented by type:service and >> type:library which are deployment projects including but not limited to >> Fuel, Kolla, OSA, and TripleO. The main motivation behind this addition >> are: >> >> 1. Make it known to all which projects are deployment projects in the >> governance repository. >> 2. Provide that information via the governance website under release >> management tags. >> 3. Permit deployment projects to take part in the assert tags relating >> to upgrades [2]. >> >> >> Currently fuel is listed as a type:service in the governance repository >> which is only partially accurate. It may provide a ReST API, but during >> the Kolla big tent application process, we were told we couldn't use >> type:service as it only applied to daemon services and not deployment >> projects. > >I agree that type:service is not really a good match for Fuel or Kolla, >and we could definitely use something else -- that would make it a lot >clearer what is what for the downstream consumers of the software we >produce. > >One issue is that tags are applied to deliverables, not project teams. >For the Fuel team it's pretty clear (it would apply to their "fuel" >deliverable). For Kolla team, I suspect it would apply to the "kolla" >deliverable. But the TripleO team produces a collection of tools, so >it's unclear which of those would be considered the main "deployment" >thing. For kolla we are considering splitting the repository (to be discussed at the Kolla midcycle) into our docker packaging efforts and our Ansible deployment efforts since the ABI is very stable at this point and we don't see any requirements for changing the container ABI at present. What this would mean is our repositories would be Kolla - build docker containers - type:packaging Kolla-ansible - deploy Kolla's docker containers - type:deployment (and type:upgrade in the future once we get a gate up to meet the requirements and assuming this proposal is voted in by the technical committee). In essence Kolla would be affected by this same scenario as TripleO. Perhaps the tripleo folks could weigh-in in the review. I don't want the tag to be onerous to apply. I believe tags should be relatively easy to obtain if the project meets the "spirit of the tag". That said if the proposed language could be written to include TripleO's deliverable without excluding it, then that is what I'd be after. Dan can you weigh in? > >For OSA, we don't produce the deployment tool, only a set of playbooks. >I was thinking we might need a type:packaging tag to describe which >things we produce are just about packaging OpenStack things for usage by >outside deployment systems (Ansible, Puppet, Chef, Deb, RPM...). So I'm >not sure your type:deployment tag would apply to OSA. Brain still booting this morning - 8am ftl. Thinking more clearly on this point, we could add a requirement that the software produce a functional out of the box working environment. This would easily apply to OSA and possibly even Puppet/Chef efforts. A stab at it would be: "After deployment is complete, the starter-kit:compute is fully operational without further interaction from the Operator." Open to language help in the review itself - I'll propose an update this morning. I'd like to be inclusive of projects like Puppet and Chef and obviously OSA which are clearly deployment systems which rely on deployment tools like Puppet, Chef, and Ansible respectively. This is the same model Kolla follows as well. Kolla Doesn't reinvent Ansible, we just use it. A type:packaging doesn't really fit though, because Kolla provides a completely working out of the box deployment whereas packaging (deb, docker, rpm) only package the software for other deployment tools to consume. Thanks Thierry for the feedback. Regards, -steve > >-- >Thierry Carrez (ttx) > >__________________________________________________________________________ >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 __________________________________________________________________________ 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