On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 15:37 +0000, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > > On 3/22/16, 2:15 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: > > > > > > Technical Committee, > > > > > > Please accept my proposal of a new type of project called a > > > deployment > > > [1]. If people don¹t 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?
I see no harm in adding this extra type:deployment tag to some of the TripleO deliverables. +1 from me. > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
