Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Jeffrey Zhang]

I +1 for split the kolla-k8s repo, too.

Here is the reason:

1. Kolla will be split into several repo in the future: kolla-docker,
kolla-ansible. So
   if we use one repo for k8s, we will split it again. It will be more
painful to do this.

2. Normally, the kolla-docker, kolla-ansible and kolla-k8s has less
relations between
   each other. We need decouple them. So split the repo will be helpful for
that. then
   different reviewer/committer cloud focus on her own domain.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Just to be clear, we are not putting master on pause for 4-6 weeks to
> split apart the repos to enable kubernetes development.  The option on the
> table at this point are
> A) kolla repo as it exists today and empty repo for k8s
> B) kolla repo as it exists today with kubernetes integrated
>
> A pause would essentially kill any kubernetes effort.  Plus there is a
> whole bunch of reasons why not to split the main kolla repo.  The fact
> that our tools don't work well for this means that developers are less
> likely to go through backporting bug fixes, which means our stable
> branches may fall into disrepair.
>
> Keep in mind, our stable branches fell into disrepair last time because of
> tools.  We were not using launchpad correctly as a team, which we are now
> doing.  As a result back-porting is consistently done and done well.  A
> bunch of manual backports will result in a lower quality code base and I
> have concerns folks wouldn't end up backporting - or worse make errors
> since the process would no longer be automated.
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
> On 5/3/16, 2:23 AM, "Paul Bourke"  wrote:
>
> >Having read through the full thread I'm still in support of separate
> >repos. I think the explanations Jeff Peeler and Adam Young have put
> >forward summarise my thoughts very well.
> >
> >One of the main arguments I seem to be hearing for a single repo is Git
> >tooling which I don't think is a good one; we should do what's best for
> >users and devs, not for tools.
> >
> >Also as the guys pointed out, multiple repos are the most common pattern
> >across OpenStack. I think it will help keep a better separation of
> >concerns. Otherwise in my experience you start to get cross
> >contamination of the projects, to the point where it becomes extremely
> >difficult to pull them apart.
> >
> >The images, ansible, and k8n need to be separate. The alternative is not
> >scalable.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >-Paul
> >
> >On 03/05/16 00:39, Angus Salkeld wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:07 AM Steven Dake (stdake)  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal
> >> 9am morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a
> >> separate repository.
> >>
> >> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based
> >> upon one off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many
> >> people from that list approached me and indicated they would like to
> >> see the work integrated in one repository as outlined in my vote
> >> proposal email.  The reasons I heard were:
> >>
> >>   * Better integration of the community
> >>   * Better integration of the code base
> >>   * Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue
> >> happened during kolla-mesos
> >>   * A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
> >> architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology
> >>   * Two gating methods versus one
> >>   * No going back to a unified repository while preserving git
> >>history
> >>
> >> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
> >>
> >>   * It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
> >>   * Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory
> >> need not be deleted
> >>
> >> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I
> >> failed to communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the
> >> vote, so now is the time for fixing that.
> >>
> >> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they
> >> want to work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the
> >> possible problems above.
> >>
> >>
> >> +1 to the separate repo
> >>
> >> I think the separate repo worked very well for us and would encourage
> >> you to replicate that again. Having one repo doing one thing makes the
> >> goal of the repo obvious and makes the api between the images and
> >> deployment clearer (also the stablity of that
> >> api and things like permissions *cough* drop-root).
> >>
> >> -Angus
> >>
> >>
> >> If you are on this list:
> >>
> >>   * Ryan Hallisey
> >>   * Britt Houser
> >>
> >>   * mark casey
> >>
> >>   * Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
> >>
> >>   * Michael Schmidt
> >>
> >>   * Marian 

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Paul,

Just to be clear, we are not putting master on pause for 4-6 weeks to
split apart the repos to enable kubernetes development.  The option on the
table at this point are
A) kolla repo as it exists today and empty repo for k8s
B) kolla repo as it exists today with kubernetes integrated

A pause would essentially kill any kubernetes effort.  Plus there is a
whole bunch of reasons why not to split the main kolla repo.  The fact
that our tools don't work well for this means that developers are less
likely to go through backporting bug fixes, which means our stable
branches may fall into disrepair.

Keep in mind, our stable branches fell into disrepair last time because of
tools.  We were not using launchpad correctly as a team, which we are now
doing.  As a result back-porting is consistently done and done well.  A
bunch of manual backports will result in a lower quality code base and I
have concerns folks wouldn't end up backporting - or worse make errors
since the process would no longer be automated.

Regards
-steve

On 5/3/16, 2:23 AM, "Paul Bourke"  wrote:

>Having read through the full thread I'm still in support of separate
>repos. I think the explanations Jeff Peeler and Adam Young have put
>forward summarise my thoughts very well.
>
>One of the main arguments I seem to be hearing for a single repo is Git
>tooling which I don't think is a good one; we should do what's best for
>users and devs, not for tools.
>
>Also as the guys pointed out, multiple repos are the most common pattern
>across OpenStack. I think it will help keep a better separation of
>concerns. Otherwise in my experience you start to get cross
>contamination of the projects, to the point where it becomes extremely
>difficult to pull them apart.
>
>The images, ansible, and k8n need to be separate. The alternative is not
>scalable.
>
>Thanks,
>-Paul
>
>On 03/05/16 00:39, Angus Salkeld wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:07 AM Steven Dake (stdake) > > wrote:
>>
>> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal
>> 9am morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a
>> separate repository.
>>
>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based
>> upon one off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many
>> people from that list approached me and indicated they would like to
>> see the work integrated in one repository as outlined in my vote
>> proposal email.  The reasons I heard were:
>>
>>   * Better integration of the community
>>   * Better integration of the code base
>>   * Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue
>> happened during kolla-mesos
>>   * A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
>> architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>>   * Two gating methods versus one
>>   * No going back to a unified repository while preserving git
>>history
>>
>> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>>
>>   * It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>>   * Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory
>> need not be deleted
>>
>> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I
>> failed to communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the
>> vote, so now is the time for fixing that.
>>
>> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they
>> want to work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the
>> possible problems above.
>>
>>
>> +1 to the separate repo
>>
>> I think the separate repo worked very well for us and would encourage
>> you to replicate that again. Having one repo doing one thing makes the
>> goal of the repo obvious and makes the api between the images and
>> deployment clearer (also the stablity of that
>> api and things like permissions *cough* drop-root).
>>
>> -Angus
>>
>>
>> If you are on this list:
>>
>>   * Ryan Hallisey
>>   * Britt Houser
>>
>>   * mark casey
>>
>>   * Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>>
>>   * Michael Schmidt
>>
>>   * Marian Schwarz
>>
>>   * Andrew Battye
>>
>>   * Kevin Fox (kfox)
>>
>>   * Sidharth Surana (ssurana)
>>
>>   *   Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)
>>
>>   *Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)
>>
>>   *MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)
>>
>>   *Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
>>
>>   *Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)
>>
>>   *Martin Andre (mandre)
>>
>>   *Ian Main (Slower)
>>
>>   * Hui Kang (huikang)
>>
>>   * Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)
>>
>>   * Alex Polvi (polvi)
>>
>>   * Rob Mason
>>
>>   * Alicja Kwasniewska
>>
>>   * sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
>>
>>   * Keith Byrne (kbyrne)
>>
>>   * Zdenek Janda (xdeu)
>>
>>   * Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)
>>
>>   * Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
>>   * 

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Paul Bourke]

Having read through the full thread I'm still in support of separate 
repos. I think the explanations Jeff Peeler and Adam Young have put 
forward summarise my thoughts very well.


One of the main arguments I seem to be hearing for a single repo is Git 
tooling which I don't think is a good one; we should do what's best for 
users and devs, not for tools.


Also as the guys pointed out, multiple repos are the most common pattern 
across OpenStack. I think it will help keep a better separation of 
concerns. Otherwise in my experience you start to get cross 
contamination of the projects, to the point where it becomes extremely 
difficult to pull them apart.


The images, ansible, and k8n need to be separate. The alternative is not 
scalable.


Thanks,
-Paul

On 03/05/16 00:39, Angus Salkeld wrote:

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:07 AM Steven Dake (stdake) > wrote:

Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal
9am morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a
separate repository.

I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based
upon one off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many
people from that list approached me and indicated they would like to
see the work integrated in one repository as outlined in my vote
proposal email.  The reasons I heard were:

  * Better integration of the community
  * Better integration of the code base
  * Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue
happened during kolla-mesos
  * A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology
  * Two gating methods versus one
  * No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history

I favor of the separate repositories I heard

  * It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
  * Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory
need not be deleted

There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I
failed to communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the
vote, so now is the time for fixing that.

I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they
want to work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the
possible problems above.


+1 to the separate repo

I think the separate repo worked very well for us and would encourage
you to replicate that again. Having one repo doing one thing makes the
goal of the repo obvious and makes the api between the images and
deployment clearer (also the stablity of that
api and things like permissions *cough* drop-root).

-Angus


If you are on this list:

  * Ryan Hallisey
  * Britt Houser

  * mark casey

  * Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)

  * Michael Schmidt

  * Marian Schwarz

  * Andrew Battye

  * Kevin Fox (kfox)

  * Sidharth Surana (ssurana)

  *   Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)

  *Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)

  *MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)

  *Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)

  *Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)

  *Martin Andre (mandre)

  *Ian Main (Slower)

  * Hui Kang (huikang)

  * Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)

  * Alex Polvi (polvi)

  * Rob Mason

  * Alicja Kwasniewska

  * sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)

  * Keith Byrne (kbyrne)

  * Zdenek Janda (xdeu)

  * Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)

  * Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
  * Jinay Vora
  * Hui Kang
  * Davanum Srinivas



Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a
unified repository.

The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if
we proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.

Thank you
-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



__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Andreas Jaeger]

On 05/02/2016 05:53 PM, Jeff Peeler wrote:

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Andreas Jaeger  wrote:

On 05/02/2016 03:05 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:

Swapnil,

I gather this is what people want but this cannot be done with git and
maintain history.  To do this, we would have to "cp oldrepo/files to
newrepo/files" and the git history would be lost.  That is why choosing
two repositories up front is irreversible.



On the other hand: If you start with one and want to split later, you can
use git-filter to create a copy of the repo with just the kubernetes files
in it and set up a new repository with that content. So, you would keep the
history...


Andreas, could you also not do the reverse with two separate
repositories and merge them to preserve the history using subtree
merging [1]? If I'm not correct, I'm sure repository merging can be
done somehow as Linus merged gitk into git years ago with history
preservation. So really, I don't think git history should be part of
this discussion.

[1] 
https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/howto/using-merge-subtree.html


Since we don't use git directly but gerrit, the question is what is 
possible there - and I'm not aware of any workflow for this,


Andreas
--
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
   HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Swapnil Kulkarni]

On May 3, 2016 1:53 AM, "Davanum Srinivas" <dava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry for top-post...
>
> There's a third option : Using Feature branch for Kubernetes with a
> custom gerrit group
>
> * Feature branch can be sync'ed from Master periodically
> * Feature branch can have it's own separate gerrit group.
> * We can opt to merge from feature branch to master if necessary.
> * We can have minimum changes in the feature branch (only that is
> needed for k8s work). Everything else should hit master first and then
> sync'ed to the branch.
> * We should have a deadline for the feature branch when we think
> appropriate (Say Newton-2 Milestone?)
> * We can define jobs that run only on feature branch
> * I'll assume that folks get promoted as they earn karma from just the
> feature group to the main group.
> * At some point (Newton-2) we take a go/no-go on k8s feature for the
> Newton release, if we say no-go, then the feature branch remains for
> on-going work while the master branch can be made release-ready.
>
> Worst case scenario, we nuke the feature branch as an experiment
> Best case scenario, we can choose either to make the feature branch
> into master OR figure out how to split the contents into another repo.
> We don't have to decide right now.
>
> Thanks,
> Dims
>

like this option which keeps you kinda detached to the kolla repo and
achieve the required bootstrapping, gating, reviewing code separately and
analyze overlap.

> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com>
wrote:
> > Yup but that didn't happen with kolla-mesos and I didn't catch it until
2
> > weeks after it was locked in stone.  At that point I asked for the ABI
to
> > be unified to which I got a "shrug" and no action.
> >
> > If it has been in one repo, everyone would have seen the multiple ABIs
and
> > rejected the patch in the first place.
> >
> > FWIW I am totally open to extending the ABI however is necessary to make
> > Kolla containers be the reference that other projects use for their
> > container deployment technology tooling.  In this case the ABI was
> > extended without consultation and without repair after the problem was
> > noticed.
> >
> > Regards
> > -steve
> >
> > On 5/2/16, 12:04 PM, "Fox, Kevin M" <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> >>+1 to one set of containers for all. If kolla-k8s needs tweaks to the
> >>abi, the request should go to the kolla core team (involving everyone)
> >>and discuss why they are needed/reasonable. This should be done
> >>regardless of if there are 1or 2 repo's in the end.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Kevin
> >>
> >>From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
> >>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:14 AM
> >>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
> >>
> >>I personally would like to see one set of defaults files for the default
> >>config and merging thereof. (the stuff in roles/*/defaults).
> >>
> >>There would be overlap there.
> >>
> >>A lot of the overlap involves things like reno, sphinx, documentation,
> >>gating, etc.
> >>
> >>During kolla-emsos, separate containers (IIRC) were made, separate start
> >>extension scripts were made, and to my dismay a completely different ABI
> >>was implemented.
> >>
> >>We need one ABI to the containers and that should be laid out in the
spec
> >>if it isn't already.
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>-steve
> >>
> >>
> >>On 5/2/16, 10:31 AM, "Ryan Hallisey" <rhall...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Most of the code is not an overlap. We will preserve the ABI while
> >>>customizing the ansible config generation (if we do end up using it).
We
> >>>can use some of what's in kolla as a starting point.
> >>>
> >>>I'd say the code overlap is a bootstrapping point for the project.
> >>>
> >>>-Ryan
> >>>
> >>>- Original Message -
> >>>From: "Kevin M Fox" <kevin@pnnl.gov>
> >>>To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> >>><openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> >>>Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:56:22 PM
> >>>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
> >>>
> >>>One thing we didn't ta

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Angus Salkeld]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:07 AM Steven Dake (stdake) 
wrote:

> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
>  repository.
>
> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one
> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that list
> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in
> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I heard
> were:
>
>- Better integration of the community
>- Better integration of the code base
>- Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue
>happened during kolla-mesos
>- A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
>architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>- Two gating methods versus one
>- No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>
> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>
>- It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>- Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need
>not be deleted
>
> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed to
> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is
> the time for fixing that.
>
> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want
> to work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
> above.
>

+1 to the separate repo

I think the separate repo worked very well for us and would encourage you
to replicate that again. Having one repo doing one thing makes the goal of
the repo obvious and makes the api between the images and deployment
clearer (also the stablity of that
api and things like permissions *cough* drop-root).

-Angus


>
> If you are on this list:
>
>
>- Ryan Hallisey
>- Britt Houser
>
>
>- mark casey
>
>
>- Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>
>
>- Michael Schmidt
>
>
>- Marian Schwarz
>
>
>- Andrew Battye
>
>
>- Kevin Fox (kfox)
>
>
>- Sidharth Surana (ssurana)
>
>
>-  Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)
>
>
>-   Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)
>
>
>-   MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)
>
>
>-   Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
>
>
>-   Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)
>
>
>-   Martin Andre (mandre)
>
>
>-   Ian Main (Slower)
>
>
>- Hui Kang (huikang)
>
>
>- Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)
>
>
>- Alex Polvi (polvi)
>
>
>- Rob Mason
>
>
>- Alicja Kwasniewska
>
>
>- sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
>
>
>- Keith Byrne (kbyrne)
>
>
>- Zdenek Janda (xdeu)
>
>
>- Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)
>
>
>- Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
>- Jinay Vora
>- Hui Kang
>- Davanum Srinivas
>
>
>
> Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified
> repository.
>
> The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we
> proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.
>
> Thank you
> -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
>
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Michał Jastrzębski]

Well, I don't think we should rely on ansible's config generation. We
can't really as it's wired into ansible too much. jinja2 templates in
Dockerfiles aren't connected to ansible in any way and are perfectly
reusable.

On 2 May 2016 at 16:13, Qiu Yu  wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
> wrote:
>>
>> Yup but that didn't happen with kolla-mesos and I didn't catch it until 2
>> weeks after it was locked in stone.  At that point I asked for the ABI to
>> be unified to which I got a "shrug" and no action.
>>
>> If it has been in one repo, everyone would have seen the multiple ABIs and
>> rejected the patch in the first place.
>>
>> FWIW I am totally open to extending the ABI however is necessary to make
>> Kolla containers be the reference that other projects use for their
>> container deployment technology tooling.  In this case the ABI was
>> extended without consultation and without repair after the problem was
>> noticed.
>
>
> ABI has been mentioned a lot in either this thread or the spec code review.
> Does it refer to container image only, or does it cover other part like
> jinja2
> template for config generation as well?
>
> That is the part I think need more clarification. Because even though we
> treat
> Kubernetes as just another deployment tool, but if it still relies on
> Ansible to
> generate configuations (as proposed in the spec[1]), then there's no clean
> way
> to centralize all Kube related stuff in separate repo.
>
> If we're going to re-use Kolla's jinja2 templates and ini merging (which is
> heavily depends on Ansible module as of now), I think practically it is
> easiser
> to bootstrap Kubernetes stuff in the same Kolla repo. But other than that,
> I'm
> in favor of separate Kolla-kubernetes repo.
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/304182
>
> QY
>
>
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Qiu Yu]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
wrote:

> Yup but that didn't happen with kolla-mesos and I didn't catch it until 2
> weeks after it was locked in stone.  At that point I asked for the ABI to
> be unified to which I got a "shrug" and no action.
>
> If it has been in one repo, everyone would have seen the multiple ABIs and
> rejected the patch in the first place.
>
> FWIW I am totally open to extending the ABI however is necessary to make
> Kolla containers be the reference that other projects use for their
> container deployment technology tooling.  In this case the ABI was
> extended without consultation and without repair after the problem was
> noticed.


ABI has been mentioned a lot in either this thread or the spec code review.
Does it refer to container image only, or does it cover other part like
jinja2
template for config generation as well?

That is the part I think need more clarification. Because even though we
treat
Kubernetes as just another deployment tool, but if it still relies on
Ansible to
generate configuations (as proposed in the spec[1]), then there's no clean
way
to centralize all Kube related stuff in separate repo.

If we're going to re-use Kolla's jinja2 templates and ini merging (which is
heavily depends on Ansible module as of now), I think practically it is
easiser
to bootstrap Kubernetes stuff in the same Kolla repo. But other than that,
I'm
in favor of separate Kolla-kubernetes repo.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/304182

QY
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Adam Young]

On 05/01/2016 05:03 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 
9am morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a 
separate repository.


In Keystone, we are going to more and more repositories all the time.  
We started with everything in Keystone server, then split out the 
python-keystoneclient repo, then keystonemiddleware, and now 
keystoneauth.  Kerberos requires a separate auth repo, too, just due to 
package dependencies.  Multiple repos are not a bad thing.  The Policy 
store, and  the drivers behind identity are all candidates for future 
refactoring.


Splitting a repo is not a big deal, but it is easier to do up front than 
to retool.




I think starting with a separate, but supported repository makes things 
much easier.


Kolla is 2 things:

1.  Creation of Containers for deploying the base openstack services.
2.  Actual deployment of the same

I would argue that the architecture for this should be something like 4 
repos:


1.  Container production.  Assuming a single toolchain here.
2.  Kubernetes deploy
3.  Ansible deploy
4.  Mesos deploy
5.  kolla-deploy-common.

Python in general makes it hard to have more than one upstream library 
from a repo, so you really want to think about what it looks like from 
PyPi first and organize based on that.


If anything can be pulled out into its own repo, it should.

Yeah, it makes development a bit more of a pain, but there are ways to 
mitigate that.  git subprojects might be a painful one, but it is not 
the the only approach.


Over time, I would expect both the Ansible and Kubernetes repos 
themselves to be split into finer repos, with Ansible plugins and 
Kubernetes modules being separately managed.






I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon 
one off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from 
that list approached me and indicated they would like to see the work 
integrated in one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email. 
 The reasons I heard were:


  * Better integration of the community
  * Better integration of the code base
  * Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue
happened during kolla-mesos
  * A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology
  * Two gating methods versus one
  * No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history

I favor of the separate repositories I heard

  * It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
  * Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need
not be deleted

There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed 
to communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so 
now is the time for fixing that.


I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they 
want to work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible 
problems above.


If you are on this list:

  * Ryan Hallisey
  * Britt Houser

  * mark casey

  * Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)

  * Michael Schmidt

  * Marian Schwarz

  * Andrew Battye

  * Kevin Fox (kfox)

  * Sidharth Surana (ssurana)

  *  Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)

  *   Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)

  *   MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)

  *   Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)

  *   Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)

  *   Martin Andre (mandre)

  *   Ian Main (Slower)

  * Hui Kang (huikang)

  * Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)

  * Alex Polvi (polvi)

  * Rob Mason

  * Alicja Kwasniewska

  * sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)

  * Keith Byrne (kbyrne)

  * Zdenek Janda (xdeu)

  * Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)

  * Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
  * Jinay Vora
  * Hui Kang
  * Davanum Srinivas



Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a 
unified repository.


The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if 
we proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.


Thank you
-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


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Davanum Srinivas]

Sorry for top-post...

There's a third option : Using Feature branch for Kubernetes with a
custom gerrit group

* Feature branch can be sync'ed from Master periodically
* Feature branch can have it's own separate gerrit group.
* We can opt to merge from feature branch to master if necessary.
* We can have minimum changes in the feature branch (only that is
needed for k8s work). Everything else should hit master first and then
sync'ed to the branch.
* We should have a deadline for the feature branch when we think
appropriate (Say Newton-2 Milestone?)
* We can define jobs that run only on feature branch
* I'll assume that folks get promoted as they earn karma from just the
feature group to the main group.
* At some point (Newton-2) we take a go/no-go on k8s feature for the
Newton release, if we say no-go, then the feature branch remains for
on-going work while the master branch can be made release-ready.

Worst case scenario, we nuke the feature branch as an experiment
Best case scenario, we can choose either to make the feature branch
into master OR figure out how to split the contents into another repo.
We don't have to decide right now.

Thanks,
Dims

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Yup but that didn't happen with kolla-mesos and I didn't catch it until 2
> weeks after it was locked in stone.  At that point I asked for the ABI to
> be unified to which I got a "shrug" and no action.
>
> If it has been in one repo, everyone would have seen the multiple ABIs and
> rejected the patch in the first place.
>
> FWIW I am totally open to extending the ABI however is necessary to make
> Kolla containers be the reference that other projects use for their
> container deployment technology tooling.  In this case the ABI was
> extended without consultation and without repair after the problem was
> noticed.
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
> On 5/2/16, 12:04 PM, "Fox, Kevin M" <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
>
>>+1 to one set of containers for all. If kolla-k8s needs tweaks to the
>>abi, the request should go to the kolla core team (involving everyone)
>>and discuss why they are needed/reasonable. This should be done
>>regardless of if there are 1or 2 repo's in the end.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Kevin
>>
>>From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
>>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:14 AM
>>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>
>>I personally would like to see one set of defaults files for the default
>>config and merging thereof. (the stuff in roles/*/defaults).
>>
>>There would be overlap there.
>>
>>A lot of the overlap involves things like reno, sphinx, documentation,
>>gating, etc.
>>
>>During kolla-emsos, separate containers (IIRC) were made, separate start
>>extension scripts were made, and to my dismay a completely different ABI
>>was implemented.
>>
>>We need one ABI to the containers and that should be laid out in the spec
>>if it isn't already.
>>
>>Regards
>>-steve
>>
>>
>>On 5/2/16, 10:31 AM, "Ryan Hallisey" <rhall...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Most of the code is not an overlap. We will preserve the ABI while
>>>customizing the ansible config generation (if we do end up using it). We
>>>can use some of what's in kolla as a starting point.
>>>
>>>I'd say the code overlap is a bootstrapping point for the project.
>>>
>>>-Ryan
>>>
>>>- Original Message -
>>>From: "Kevin M Fox" <kevin@pnnl.gov>
>>>To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>><openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>>Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:56:22 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>>
>>>One thing we didn't talk about too much at the summit is the part of the
>>>spec that says we will reuse a bunch of ansible stuff to generate configs
>>>for the k8s case...
>>>
>>>Do we believe that code would be minimal and not impact separate repo's
>>>much or is the majority of the work in the end going to be focused there?
>>>If most of the code ends up landing there, then its probably not worth
>>>splitting?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Kevin
>>>
>>>From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
>>>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:05 AM
>>>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage ques

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Martin André]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Jeff Peeler  wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)  wrote:
>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one
>> off private conversations with folks at summit. Many people from that list
>> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in
>> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I heard
>> were:
>>
>> Better integration of the community
>> Better integration of the code base
>> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened during
>> kolla-mesos
>> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment architecture
>> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>> Two gating methods versus one
>> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>>
>> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>>
>> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not be
>> deleted
>>
>> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed to
>> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is
>> the time for fixing that.
>
> I favor the repository split, but the reason being is that I think
> Ansible along with Kubernetes should each be a separate repository.
> Keeping a monolithic repository is the opposite of the "Unix
> philosophy". It was even recommended at one point to split every
> single service into a separate repository [1].
>
> Repository management, backports, and additional gating are all things
> that I'll admit are more work with more than one single repository.
> However, the ease of ramping up where everything is separated out
> makes it worth it in my opinion. I believe the success of a given
> community is partially due to proper delineation of expertise
> (otherwise, why not put all OpenStack services in one gigantic repo?).
> I'm echoing this comment somebody said at the summit: stretching the
> core team across every orchestration tool is not scalable. I'm really
> hoping more projects will grow around the Kolla ecosystem and can do
> so without being required to become proficient with every other
> orchestration system.
>
> One argument for keeping a single repository is to compare to the
> mesos effort (that has stopped now) in a different repository. But as
> it has already been said, mesos should have been given fairness with
> ansible split out as well. If everything were in a single repository,
> it has been suggested that the community will review more. However, I
> don't personally believe that with gerrit in use that affects things
> at all. OpenStack even has a gerrit dashboard creator [2], but I think
> developers are capable enough at easily finding what they want to
> consistently review.
>
> As I said in a previous reply [3], I don't think git history should
> affect this decision as we can make it work in either scenario. ACL
> permissions seem overly complicated to be in the same repository, even
> if we can arrange for a feature branch to have different permissions
> from the main repo.
>
> My views here are definitely focused on the long term view. If any
> short term plans can be made to allow ourselves to eventually align
> with having separate repositories, I don't think I'd have a problem
> with that. However, I thought the Ansible code was supposed to have
> been separated out a long time ago. This is a natural inflection point
> to change policy and mode of operating, which is why I don't enjoy the
> idea of waiting any longer. Luckily, having Ansible in the same
> repository currently does not inhibit any momentum with Kubernetes in
> a separate repository.
>
> As far as starting the repositories split and then merging them in the
> future (assuming Ansible also stays in one repo), I don't know why we
> would want that. But perhaps after the Kubernetes effort has
> progressed we can better determine if that makes sense with a clear
> view of what the project files actually end up looking like. I don't
> think that any project that changes the containers' ABI is suitable to
> be labeled as "Kolla", so there wouldn't be any dockerfiles part of
> the repository.
>
> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-April/093213.html
> [2] https://github.com/openstack/gerrit-dash-creator
> [3] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/093645.html

Jeff, I 100% agree here.

The strongest argument for single repo, IMO, is that it facilitates
code reviews for changes affecting both the container images and the
deployment tool, and makes it easier for backports.
On the other hand, having "better integration" as Steve put it, is not
always desirable: deployment tools each come with their specific
features and philosophy and I'd hate to see a patch receive negative
feedback because the developers can't agree on 

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Jeff,

What you propose is reasonable, but the timeline to make all that long
term vision happen is time consuming and we want to get rolling now, not
in t-4 to 6 weeks after we can sort out a kolla-docker and kolla-ansible
split.

FWIW It will make backporting a serious painful experience, and I am
totally not in favor of doing any type of splitting of docker and ansible
until the core team is fully comfortable with maintaining stable backports.

Further I want the core team to understand how gating works (and that
happens by doing).  Gating experience will come in this cycle.

By doing these two things we could possibly have a split repo in as little
as a week if 1 person weren't responsible for all of the work.  To get
there takes training on backporting and gating, which I expect people will
learn well over the next cycle.

Regards
-steve

On 5/2/16, 11:23 AM, "Jeff Peeler"  wrote:

>On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 
>wrote:
>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon
>>one
>> off private conversations with folks at summit. Many people from that
>>list
>> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated
>>in
>> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I
>>heard
>> were:
>>
>> Better integration of the community
>> Better integration of the code base
>> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened
>>during
>> kolla-mesos
>> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
>>architecture
>> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>> Two gating methods versus one
>> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>>
>> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>>
>> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not
>>be
>> deleted
>>
>> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed
>>to
>> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now
>>is
>> the time for fixing that.
>
>I favor the repository split, but the reason being is that I think
>Ansible along with Kubernetes should each be a separate repository.
>Keeping a monolithic repository is the opposite of the "Unix
>philosophy". It was even recommended at one point to split every
>single service into a separate repository [1].
>
>Repository management, backports, and additional gating are all things
>that I'll admit are more work with more than one single repository.
>However, the ease of ramping up where everything is separated out
>makes it worth it in my opinion. I believe the success of a given
>community is partially due to proper delineation of expertise
>(otherwise, why not put all OpenStack services in one gigantic repo?).
>I'm echoing this comment somebody said at the summit: stretching the
>core team across every orchestration tool is not scalable. I'm really
>hoping more projects will grow around the Kolla ecosystem and can do
>so without being required to become proficient with every other
>orchestration system.
>
>One argument for keeping a single repository is to compare to the
>mesos effort (that has stopped now) in a different repository. But as
>it has already been said, mesos should have been given fairness with
>ansible split out as well. If everything were in a single repository,
>it has been suggested that the community will review more. However, I
>don't personally believe that with gerrit in use that affects things
>at all. OpenStack even has a gerrit dashboard creator [2], but I think
>developers are capable enough at easily finding what they want to
>consistently review.
>
>As I said in a previous reply [3], I don't think git history should
>affect this decision as we can make it work in either scenario. ACL
>permissions seem overly complicated to be in the same repository, even
>if we can arrange for a feature branch to have different permissions
>from the main repo.
>
>My views here are definitely focused on the long term view. If any
>short term plans can be made to allow ourselves to eventually align
>with having separate repositories, I don't think I'd have a problem
>with that. However, I thought the Ansible code was supposed to have
>been separated out a long time ago. This is a natural inflection point
>to change policy and mode of operating, which is why I don't enjoy the
>idea of waiting any longer. Luckily, having Ansible in the same
>repository currently does not inhibit any momentum with Kubernetes in
>a separate repository.
>
>As far as starting the repositories split and then merging them in the
>future (assuming Ansible also stays in one repo), I don't know why we
>would want that. But perhaps after the Kubernetes effort has
>progressed we can better determine if that makes sense with a clear
>view of what the project files actually end up looking like. I don't
>think that any 

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Yup but that didn't happen with kolla-mesos and I didn't catch it until 2
weeks after it was locked in stone.  At that point I asked for the ABI to
be unified to which I got a "shrug" and no action.

If it has been in one repo, everyone would have seen the multiple ABIs and
rejected the patch in the first place.

FWIW I am totally open to extending the ABI however is necessary to make
Kolla containers be the reference that other projects use for their
container deployment technology tooling.  In this case the ABI was
extended without consultation and without repair after the problem was
noticed.

Regards
-steve

On 5/2/16, 12:04 PM, "Fox, Kevin M" <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:

>+1 to one set of containers for all. If kolla-k8s needs tweaks to the
>abi, the request should go to the kolla core team (involving everyone)
>and discuss why they are needed/reasonable. This should be done
>regardless of if there are 1or 2 repo's in the end.
>
>Thanks,
>Kevin
>
>From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:14 AM
>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>
>I personally would like to see one set of defaults files for the default
>config and merging thereof. (the stuff in roles/*/defaults).
>
>There would be overlap there.
>
>A lot of the overlap involves things like reno, sphinx, documentation,
>gating, etc.
>
>During kolla-emsos, separate containers (IIRC) were made, separate start
>extension scripts were made, and to my dismay a completely different ABI
>was implemented.
>
>We need one ABI to the containers and that should be laid out in the spec
>if it isn't already.
>
>Regards
>-steve
>
>
>On 5/2/16, 10:31 AM, "Ryan Hallisey" <rhall...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>Most of the code is not an overlap. We will preserve the ABI while
>>customizing the ansible config generation (if we do end up using it). We
>>can use some of what's in kolla as a starting point.
>>
>>I'd say the code overlap is a bootstrapping point for the project.
>>
>>-Ryan
>>
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Kevin M Fox" <kevin@pnnl.gov>
>>To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>><openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:56:22 PM
>>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>
>>One thing we didn't talk about too much at the summit is the part of the
>>spec that says we will reuse a bunch of ansible stuff to generate configs
>>for the k8s case...
>>
>>Do we believe that code would be minimal and not impact separate repo's
>>much or is the majority of the work in the end going to be focused there?
>>If most of the code ends up landing there, then its probably not worth
>>splitting?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Kevin
>>
>>From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
>>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:05 AM
>>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>
>>On 5/1/16, 10:32 PM, "Swapnil Kulkarni" <m...@coolsvap.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser)
>>><bhou...@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.
>>>>
>>>> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
>>>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>>>>questions)"
>>>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>>> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
>>>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>>>
>>>> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal
>>>>9am
>>>> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
>>>> repository.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon
>>>>one
>>>> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that
>>>>list
>>>> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated
>>>>in
>>>> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email. 

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Michał Jastrzębski]

I agree that we need one set of containers. Containers are kolla,
deployment tools are consumers of kolla. We need our containers rock
solid and decoupled from whatever is deploying them. Every company ops
shop have their tooling and methods, let's help them.

I'm not super in favor of ansible split, my personal fav is to have
kolla repo with few deployments tools, but *all of them stable*. What
is in kolla should be prod ready.

So I'm for second repo for k8s for time being.

On 2 May 2016 at 14:04, Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> wrote:
> +1 to one set of containers for all. If kolla-k8s needs tweaks to the abi, 
> the request should go to the kolla core team (involving everyone) and discuss 
> why they are needed/reasonable. This should be done regardless of if there 
> are 1or 2 repo's in the end.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:14 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>
> I personally would like to see one set of defaults files for the default
> config and merging thereof. (the stuff in roles/*/defaults).
>
> There would be overlap there.
>
> A lot of the overlap involves things like reno, sphinx, documentation,
> gating, etc.
>
> During kolla-emsos, separate containers (IIRC) were made, separate start
> extension scripts were made, and to my dismay a completely different ABI
> was implemented.
>
> We need one ABI to the containers and that should be laid out in the spec
> if it isn't already.
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>
> On 5/2/16, 10:31 AM, "Ryan Hallisey" <rhall...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>Most of the code is not an overlap. We will preserve the ABI while
>>customizing the ansible config generation (if we do end up using it). We
>>can use some of what's in kolla as a starting point.
>>
>>I'd say the code overlap is a bootstrapping point for the project.
>>
>>-Ryan
>>
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Kevin M Fox" <kevin....@pnnl.gov>
>>To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>><openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:56:22 PM
>>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>
>>One thing we didn't talk about too much at the summit is the part of the
>>spec that says we will reuse a bunch of ansible stuff to generate configs
>>for the k8s case...
>>
>>Do we believe that code would be minimal and not impact separate repo's
>>much or is the majority of the work in the end going to be focused there?
>>If most of the code ends up landing there, then its probably not worth
>>splitting?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Kevin
>>
>>From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
>>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:05 AM
>>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>
>>On 5/1/16, 10:32 PM, "Swapnil Kulkarni" <m...@coolsvap.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser)
>>><bhou...@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.
>>>>
>>>> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
>>>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>>>>questions)"
>>>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>>> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
>>>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>>>
>>>> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal
>>>>9am
>>>> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
>>>> repository.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon
>>>>one
>>>> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that
>>>>list
>>>> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated
>>>>in
>>>> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I
>>>>heard
>>>> were:
>>>>
>>>> Better integration of the community

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Fox, Kevin M]

+1 to one set of containers for all. If kolla-k8s needs tweaks to the abi, the 
request should go to the kolla core team (involving everyone) and discuss why 
they are needed/reasonable. This should be done regardless of if there are 1or 
2 repo's in the end.

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:14 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

I personally would like to see one set of defaults files for the default
config and merging thereof. (the stuff in roles/*/defaults).

There would be overlap there.

A lot of the overlap involves things like reno, sphinx, documentation,
gating, etc.

During kolla-emsos, separate containers (IIRC) were made, separate start
extension scripts were made, and to my dismay a completely different ABI
was implemented.

We need one ABI to the containers and that should be laid out in the spec
if it isn't already.

Regards
-steve


On 5/2/16, 10:31 AM, "Ryan Hallisey" <rhall...@redhat.com> wrote:

>Most of the code is not an overlap. We will preserve the ABI while
>customizing the ansible config generation (if we do end up using it). We
>can use some of what's in kolla as a starting point.
>
>I'd say the code overlap is a bootstrapping point for the project.
>
>-Ryan
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Kevin M Fox" <kevin@pnnl.gov>
>To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
><openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:56:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>
>One thing we didn't talk about too much at the summit is the part of the
>spec that says we will reuse a bunch of ansible stuff to generate configs
>for the k8s case...
>
>Do we believe that code would be minimal and not impact separate repo's
>much or is the majority of the work in the end going to be focused there?
>If most of the code ends up landing there, then its probably not worth
>splitting?
>
>Thanks,
>Kevin
>
>From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:05 AM
>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>
>On 5/1/16, 10:32 PM, "Swapnil Kulkarni" <m...@coolsvap.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser)
>><bhou...@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.
>>>
>>> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
>>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>>>questions)"
>>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
>>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>>
>>> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal
>>>9am
>>> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
>>> repository.
>>>
>>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon
>>>one
>>> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that
>>>list
>>> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated
>>>in
>>> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I
>>>heard
>>> were:
>>>
>>> Better integration of the community
>>> Better integration of the code base
>>> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened
>>>during
>>> kolla-mesos
>>> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
>>>architecture
>>> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>>> Two gating methods versus one
>>> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>>>
>>> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>>>
>>> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>>> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not
>>>be
>>> deleted
>>>
>>> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed
>>>to
>>> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now
>>>is
>>> the 

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Jeff Peeler]

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)  wrote:
> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one
> off private conversations with folks at summit. Many people from that list
> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in
> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I heard
> were:
>
> Better integration of the community
> Better integration of the code base
> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened during
> kolla-mesos
> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment architecture
> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
> Two gating methods versus one
> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>
> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>
> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not be
> deleted
>
> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed to
> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is
> the time for fixing that.

I favor the repository split, but the reason being is that I think
Ansible along with Kubernetes should each be a separate repository.
Keeping a monolithic repository is the opposite of the "Unix
philosophy". It was even recommended at one point to split every
single service into a separate repository [1].

Repository management, backports, and additional gating are all things
that I'll admit are more work with more than one single repository.
However, the ease of ramping up where everything is separated out
makes it worth it in my opinion. I believe the success of a given
community is partially due to proper delineation of expertise
(otherwise, why not put all OpenStack services in one gigantic repo?).
I'm echoing this comment somebody said at the summit: stretching the
core team across every orchestration tool is not scalable. I'm really
hoping more projects will grow around the Kolla ecosystem and can do
so without being required to become proficient with every other
orchestration system.

One argument for keeping a single repository is to compare to the
mesos effort (that has stopped now) in a different repository. But as
it has already been said, mesos should have been given fairness with
ansible split out as well. If everything were in a single repository,
it has been suggested that the community will review more. However, I
don't personally believe that with gerrit in use that affects things
at all. OpenStack even has a gerrit dashboard creator [2], but I think
developers are capable enough at easily finding what they want to
consistently review.

As I said in a previous reply [3], I don't think git history should
affect this decision as we can make it work in either scenario. ACL
permissions seem overly complicated to be in the same repository, even
if we can arrange for a feature branch to have different permissions
from the main repo.

My views here are definitely focused on the long term view. If any
short term plans can be made to allow ourselves to eventually align
with having separate repositories, I don't think I'd have a problem
with that. However, I thought the Ansible code was supposed to have
been separated out a long time ago. This is a natural inflection point
to change policy and mode of operating, which is why I don't enjoy the
idea of waiting any longer. Luckily, having Ansible in the same
repository currently does not inhibit any momentum with Kubernetes in
a separate repository.

As far as starting the repositories split and then merging them in the
future (assuming Ansible also stays in one repo), I don't know why we
would want that. But perhaps after the Kubernetes effort has
progressed we can better determine if that makes sense with a clear
view of what the project files actually end up looking like. I don't
think that any project that changes the containers' ABI is suitable to
be labeled as "Kolla", so there wouldn't be any dockerfiles part of
the repository.

[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-April/093213.html
[2] https://github.com/openstack/gerrit-dash-creator
[3] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/093645.html

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

I personally would like to see one set of defaults files for the default
config and merging thereof. (the stuff in roles/*/defaults).

There would be overlap there.

A lot of the overlap involves things like reno, sphinx, documentation,
gating, etc.

During kolla-emsos, separate containers (IIRC) were made, separate start
extension scripts were made, and to my dismay a completely different ABI
was implemented.

We need one ABI to the containers and that should be laid out in the spec
if it isn't already.

Regards
-steve


On 5/2/16, 10:31 AM, "Ryan Hallisey" <rhall...@redhat.com> wrote:

>Most of the code is not an overlap. We will preserve the ABI while
>customizing the ansible config generation (if we do end up using it). We
>can use some of what's in kolla as a starting point.
>
>I'd say the code overlap is a bootstrapping point for the project.
>
>-Ryan
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Kevin M Fox" <kevin@pnnl.gov>
>To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
><openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:56:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>
>One thing we didn't talk about too much at the summit is the part of the
>spec that says we will reuse a bunch of ansible stuff to generate configs
>for the k8s case...
>
>Do we believe that code would be minimal and not impact separate repo's
>much or is the majority of the work in the end going to be focused there?
>If most of the code ends up landing there, then its probably not worth
>splitting?
>
>Thanks,
>Kevin
>
>From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:05 AM
>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>
>On 5/1/16, 10:32 PM, "Swapnil Kulkarni" <m...@coolsvap.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser)
>><bhou...@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.
>>>
>>> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
>>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>>>questions)"
>>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
>>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>>
>>> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal
>>>9am
>>> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
>>> repository.
>>>
>>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon
>>>one
>>> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that
>>>list
>>> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated
>>>in
>>> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I
>>>heard
>>> were:
>>>
>>> Better integration of the community
>>> Better integration of the code base
>>> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened
>>>during
>>> kolla-mesos
>>> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
>>>architecture
>>> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>>> Two gating methods versus one
>>> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>>>
>>> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>>>
>>> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>>> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not
>>>be
>>> deleted
>>>
>>> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed
>>>to
>>> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now
>>>is
>>> the time for fixing that.
>>>
>>> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they
>>>want to
>>> work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
>>> above.
>>>
>>> If you are on this list:
>>>
>>> Ryan Hallisey
>>> Britt Houser
>>>
>>> mark casey
>>>
>>> Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>>>
>>> Michael Schmidt
>>>
>>> Marian 

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Ryan Hallisey]

Most of the code is not an overlap. We will preserve the ABI while customizing 
the ansible config generation (if we do end up using it). We can use some of 
what's in kolla as a starting point.

I'd say the code overlap is a bootstrapping point for the project.

-Ryan

- Original Message -
From: "Kevin M Fox" <kevin@pnnl.gov>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:56:22 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

One thing we didn't talk about too much at the summit is the part of the spec 
that says we will reuse a bunch of ansible stuff to generate configs for the 
k8s case...

Do we believe that code would be minimal and not impact separate repo's much or 
is the majority of the work in the end going to be focused there? If most of 
the code ends up landing there, then its probably not worth splitting?

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:05 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

On 5/1/16, 10:32 PM, "Swapnil Kulkarni" <m...@coolsvap.net> wrote:

>On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser)
><bhou...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.
>>
>> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>
>> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
>> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
>> repository.
>>
>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon
>>one
>> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that
>>list
>> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated
>>in
>> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I
>>heard
>> were:
>>
>> Better integration of the community
>> Better integration of the code base
>> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened
>>during
>> kolla-mesos
>> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
>>architecture
>> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>> Two gating methods versus one
>> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>>
>> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>>
>> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not
>>be
>> deleted
>>
>> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed
>>to
>> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now
>>is
>> the time for fixing that.
>>
>> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they
>>want to
>> work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
>> above.
>>
>> If you are on this list:
>>
>> Ryan Hallisey
>> Britt Houser
>>
>> mark casey
>>
>> Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>>
>> Michael Schmidt
>>
>> Marian Schwarz
>>
>> Andrew Battye
>>
>> Kevin Fox (kfox)
>>
>> Sidharth Surana (ssurana)
>>
>>  Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)
>>
>>   Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)
>>
>>   MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)
>>
>>   Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
>>
>>   Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)
>>
>>   Martin Andre (mandre)
>>
>>   Ian Main (Slower)
>>
>> Hui Kang (huikang)
>>
>> Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)
>>
>> Alex Polvi (polvi)
>>
>> Rob Mason
>>
>> Alicja Kwasniewska
>>
>> sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
>>
>> Keith Byrne (kbyrne)
>>
>> Zdenek Janda (xdeu)
>>
>> Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)
>>
>> Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
>> Jinay Vora
>> Hui Kang
>> Davanum Srinivas
>>
>>
>>
>> Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a
>>unified
>> reposito

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Fox, Kevin M]

One thing we didn't talk about too much at the summit is the part of the spec 
that says we will reuse a bunch of ansible stuff to generate configs for the 
k8s case...

Do we believe that code would be minimal and not impact separate repo's much or 
is the majority of the work in the end going to be focused there? If most of 
the code ends up landing there, then its probably not worth splitting?

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:05 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

On 5/1/16, 10:32 PM, "Swapnil Kulkarni" <m...@coolsvap.net> wrote:

>On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser)
><bhou...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.
>>
>> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>
>> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
>> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
>> repository.
>>
>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon
>>one
>> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that
>>list
>> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated
>>in
>> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I
>>heard
>> were:
>>
>> Better integration of the community
>> Better integration of the code base
>> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened
>>during
>> kolla-mesos
>> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
>>architecture
>> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>> Two gating methods versus one
>> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>>
>> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>>
>> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not
>>be
>> deleted
>>
>> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed
>>to
>> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now
>>is
>> the time for fixing that.
>>
>> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they
>>want to
>> work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
>> above.
>>
>> If you are on this list:
>>
>> Ryan Hallisey
>> Britt Houser
>>
>> mark casey
>>
>> Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>>
>> Michael Schmidt
>>
>> Marian Schwarz
>>
>> Andrew Battye
>>
>> Kevin Fox (kfox)
>>
>> Sidharth Surana (ssurana)
>>
>>  Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)
>>
>>   Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)
>>
>>   MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)
>>
>>   Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
>>
>>   Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)
>>
>>   Martin Andre (mandre)
>>
>>   Ian Main (Slower)
>>
>> Hui Kang (huikang)
>>
>> Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)
>>
>> Alex Polvi (polvi)
>>
>> Rob Mason
>>
>> Alicja Kwasniewska
>>
>> sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
>>
>> Keith Byrne (kbyrne)
>>
>> Zdenek Janda (xdeu)
>>
>> Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)
>>
>> Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
>> Jinay Vora
>> Hui Kang
>> Davanum Srinivas
>>
>>
>>
>> Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a
>>unified
>> repository.
>>
>> The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we
>> proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.
>>
>> Thank you
>> -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/listi

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Jeff Peeler]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Andreas Jaeger  wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 03:05 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> Swapnil,
>>
>> I gather this is what people want but this cannot be done with git and
>> maintain history.  To do this, we would have to "cp oldrepo/files to
>> newrepo/files" and the git history would be lost.  That is why choosing
>> two repositories up front is irreversible.
>
>
> On the other hand: If you start with one and want to split later, you can
> use git-filter to create a copy of the repo with just the kubernetes files
> in it and set up a new repository with that content. So, you would keep the
> history...

Andreas, could you also not do the reverse with two separate
repositories and merge them to preserve the history using subtree
merging [1]? If I'm not correct, I'm sure repository merging can be
done somehow as Linus merged gitk into git years ago with history
preservation. So really, I don't think git history should be part of
this discussion.

[1] 
https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/howto/using-merge-subtree.html

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Michal Rostecki]

It seems for me that we have a dilemma between security (abstaining from 
creating a core group which may overuse their rights in kolla repo) and 
usability (not having multiple repos, which we experienced badly in the 
kolla-mesos era).


I don't find the argument about having k8s ecosystem in separate repo 
solid. Of course creating separate python package, being the standalone 
CLI, is not problematic. But the deployment of k8s itself for the 
development environment (i.e. Vagrant) or CI may be painful.


When developing kolla-mesos, we created ansible playbooks for deploying 
Mesos. We had to duplicate the kolla-ansible script and kolla_docker 
Ansible module. We also duplicated a lot from Vagrantfile. That was 
because any officially available method of deploying Mesos wasn't 
elastic enough to meet the requirements of kolla-mesos development. And 
I'm almost sure that the similar situation will be with k8s - I don't 
see any way to reuse official kube-up scripts or Salt manigests for the 
kolla-k8s needs.


Second thing, we implemented our own Dockerfiles for Mesos. I don't know 
whether it will be needed for k8s, maybe yes, maybe not. But if yes, 
then handling the build of underlay infra containers from kolla repo for 
the needs of kolla-kubernetes looks overcomplicated, exactly as it was 
between kolla and kolla-mesos.


Therefore, I'm in favor of having one repository. I prefer to monitor 
actions of kolla-k8s cores in the short period of time than begin with 
duplicates and technical debt since the beginning of development.


Cheers,
Michal

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Ryan Hallisey]

>I am in the favor of having two separate repos and evaluating the
>merge/split option later.
>Though in the longer run, I would recommend having a single repo with
>multiple stable deployment tools(maybe too early to comment views but
>yeah)
>
>Swapnil

>Swapnil,

>I gather this is what people want but this cannot be done with git and
>maintain history.  To do this, we would have to "cp oldrepo/files to
>newrepo/files" and the git history would be lost.  That is why choosing
>two repositories up front is irreversible.

When the community votes to either merge or not to merge down the road, it 
won't be far
enough in the future that losing the git history will be catastrophic. There 
won't
even be a release for the Kubernetes solution at that point. Plus it's still up 
in
the air whether the history gets lost at all because it's not a guarantee the 
community
votes to merge it.

-Ryan

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Andreas Jaeger]

On 05/02/2016 03:05 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:



On 5/1/16, 10:32 PM, "Swapnil Kulkarni" <m...@coolsvap.net> wrote:


On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser)
<bhou...@cisco.com> wrote:

Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.

From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
repository.

I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon
one
off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that
list
approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated
in
one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I
heard
were:

Better integration of the community
Better integration of the code base
Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened
during
kolla-mesos
A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
architecture
without a voice in the full deployment methodology
Two gating methods versus one
No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history

I favor of the separate repositories I heard

It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not
be
deleted

There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed
to
communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now
is
the time for fixing that.

I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they
want to
work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
above.

If you are on this list:

Ryan Hallisey
Britt Houser

mark casey

Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)

Michael Schmidt

Marian Schwarz

Andrew Battye

Kevin Fox (kfox)

Sidharth Surana (ssurana)

  Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)

   Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)

   MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)

   Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)

   Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)

   Martin Andre (mandre)

   Ian Main (Slower)

Hui Kang (huikang)

Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)

Alex Polvi (polvi)

Rob Mason

Alicja Kwasniewska

sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)

Keith Byrne (kbyrne)

Zdenek Janda (xdeu)

Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)

Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
Jinay Vora
Hui Kang
Davanum Srinivas



Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a
unified
repository.

The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we
proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.

Thank you
-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




I am in the favor of having two separate repos and evaluating the
merge/split option later.
Though in the longer run, I would recommend having a single repo with
multiple stable deployment tools(maybe too early to comment views but
yeah)

Swapnil


Swapnil,

I gather this is what people want but this cannot be done with git and
maintain history.  To do this, we would have to "cp oldrepo/files to
newrepo/files" and the git history would be lost.  That is why choosing
two repositories up front is irreversible.


On the other hand: If you start with one and want to split later, you 
can use git-filter to create a copy of the repo with just the kubernetes 
files in it and set up a new repository with that content. So, you would 
keep the history...


Andreas
--
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
   HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

On 5/1/16, 10:32 PM, "Swapnil Kulkarni" <m...@coolsvap.net> wrote:

>On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser)
><bhou...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.
>>
>> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>
>> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
>> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
>> repository.
>>
>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon
>>one
>> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that
>>list
>> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated
>>in
>> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I
>>heard
>> were:
>>
>> Better integration of the community
>> Better integration of the code base
>> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened
>>during
>> kolla-mesos
>> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
>>architecture
>> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>> Two gating methods versus one
>> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>>
>> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>>
>> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not
>>be
>> deleted
>>
>> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed
>>to
>> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now
>>is
>> the time for fixing that.
>>
>> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they
>>want to
>> work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
>> above.
>>
>> If you are on this list:
>>
>> Ryan Hallisey
>> Britt Houser
>>
>> mark casey
>>
>> Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>>
>> Michael Schmidt
>>
>> Marian Schwarz
>>
>> Andrew Battye
>>
>> Kevin Fox (kfox)
>>
>> Sidharth Surana (ssurana)
>>
>>  Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)
>>
>>   Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)
>>
>>   MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)
>>
>>   Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
>>
>>   Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)
>>
>>   Martin Andre (mandre)
>>
>>   Ian Main (Slower)
>>
>> Hui Kang (huikang)
>>
>> Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)
>>
>> Alex Polvi (polvi)
>>
>> Rob Mason
>>
>> Alicja Kwasniewska
>>
>> sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
>>
>> Keith Byrne (kbyrne)
>>
>> Zdenek Janda (xdeu)
>>
>> Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)
>>
>> Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
>> Jinay Vora
>> Hui Kang
>> Davanum Srinivas
>>
>>
>>
>> Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a
>>unified
>> repository.
>>
>> The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we
>> proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.
>>
>> Thank you
>> -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
>>
>
>
>I am in the favor of having two separate repos and evaluating the
>merge/split option later.
>Though in the longer run, I would recommend having a single repo with
>multiple stable deployment tools(maybe too early to comment views but
>yeah)
>
>Swapnil

Swapnil,

I gather this is what people want but this cannot be done with git and
maintain history.  To do this, we would have to "cp oldrepo/files to
newrepo/files" and the git history would be lost.  That is why choosing
two repositories up front is irreversible.

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


__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Britt Houser (bhouser)]

I think several of the people who have expressed support of split repo have 
given the caveat that they want it integrated once it matures.  I know that 
merging repos at a future date without losing history is a major drawback to 
this approach.  What if instead of separate repo, we just had a "k8s" branch 
with periodic (weekly?) syncs from master?  That would allow easy merge of git 
history at the point that k8s meats the "stable" requirement.  Would having a 
separate branch in the same repo give the kolla-k8s-core the independence 
desired for quick development without infringing on master?  Is it possible in 
gerrit for kolla-k8s-core have +2 on k8s branch and not master?  Just food for 
thought.

Thx,
britt




On 5/2/16, 1:32 AM, "Swapnil Kulkarni" <m...@coolsvap.net> wrote:

>On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser)
><bhou...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.
>>
>> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>
>> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
>> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
>> repository.
>>
>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one
>> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that list
>> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in
>> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I heard
>> were:
>>
>> Better integration of the community
>> Better integration of the code base
>> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened during
>> kolla-mesos
>> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment architecture
>> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>> Two gating methods versus one
>> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>>
>> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>>
>> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not be
>> deleted
>>
>> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed to
>> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is
>> the time for fixing that.
>>
>> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want to
>> work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
>> above.
>>
>> If you are on this list:
>>
>> Ryan Hallisey
>> Britt Houser
>>
>> mark casey
>>
>> Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>>
>> Michael Schmidt
>>
>> Marian Schwarz
>>
>> Andrew Battye
>>
>> Kevin Fox (kfox)
>>
>> Sidharth Surana (ssurana)
>>
>>  Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)
>>
>>   Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)
>>
>>   MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)
>>
>>   Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
>>
>>   Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)
>>
>>   Martin Andre (mandre)
>>
>>   Ian Main (Slower)
>>
>> Hui Kang (huikang)
>>
>> Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)
>>
>> Alex Polvi (polvi)
>>
>> Rob Mason
>>
>> Alicja Kwasniewska
>>
>> sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
>>
>> Keith Byrne (kbyrne)
>>
>> Zdenek Janda (xdeu)
>>
>> Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)
>>
>> Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
>> Jinay Vora
>> Hui Kang
>> Davanum Srinivas
>>
>>
>>
>> Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified
>> repository.
>>
>> The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we
>> proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.
>>
>> Thank you
>> -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
>>
>
>
>I am in the favor of having two separate repos and evaluating the
>merge/split option later.
>Though in the longer run, I would recommend having a single repo with
>multiple stable deployment tools(maybe too early to comment views but
>yeah)
>
>Swapnil
>
>__
>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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Swapnil Kulkarni]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser)
<bhou...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.
>
> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>
> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
> repository.
>
> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one
> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that list
> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in
> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I heard
> were:
>
> Better integration of the community
> Better integration of the code base
> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened during
> kolla-mesos
> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment architecture
> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
> Two gating methods versus one
> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>
> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>
> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not be
> deleted
>
> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed to
> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is
> the time for fixing that.
>
> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want to
> work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
> above.
>
> If you are on this list:
>
> Ryan Hallisey
> Britt Houser
>
> mark casey
>
> Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>
> Michael Schmidt
>
> Marian Schwarz
>
> Andrew Battye
>
> Kevin Fox (kfox)
>
> Sidharth Surana (ssurana)
>
>  Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)
>
>   Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)
>
>   MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)
>
>   Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
>
>   Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)
>
>   Martin Andre (mandre)
>
>   Ian Main (Slower)
>
> Hui Kang (huikang)
>
> Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)
>
> Alex Polvi (polvi)
>
> Rob Mason
>
> Alicja Kwasniewska
>
> sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
>
> Keith Byrne (kbyrne)
>
> Zdenek Janda (xdeu)
>
> Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)
>
> Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
> Jinay Vora
> Hui Kang
> Davanum Srinivas
>
>
>
> Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified
> repository.
>
> The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we
> proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.
>
> Thank you
> -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
>


I am in the favor of having two separate repos and evaluating the
merge/split option later.
Though in the longer run, I would recommend having a single repo with
multiple stable deployment tools(maybe too early to comment views but
yeah)

Swapnil

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Britt Houser (bhouser)]

Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.

From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am 
morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate 
repository.

I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one off 
private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that list 
approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in one 
repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I heard were:

  *   Better integration of the community
  *   Better integration of the code base
  *   Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened 
during kolla-mesos
  *   A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment 
architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology
  *   Two gating methods versus one
  *   No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history

I favor of the separate repositories I heard

  *   It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
  *   Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not be 
deleted

There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed to 
communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is the 
time for fixing that.

I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want to 
work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems above.

If you are on this list:


  *   Ryan Hallisey
  *   Britt Houser

  *   mark casey

  *   Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)

  *   Michael Schmidt

  *   Marian Schwarz

  *   Andrew Battye

  *   Kevin Fox (kfox)

  *   Sidharth Surana (ssurana)

  *Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)

  * Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)

  * MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)

  * Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)

  * Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)

  * Martin Andre (mandre)

  * Ian Main (Slower)

  *   Hui Kang (huikang)

  *   Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)

  *   Alex Polvi (polvi)

  *   Rob Mason

  *   Alicja Kwasniewska

  *   sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)

  *   Keith Byrne (kbyrne)

  *   Zdenek Janda (xdeu)

  *   Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)

  *   Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
  *   Jinay Vora
  *   Hui Kang
  *   Davanum Srinivas


Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified 
repository.

The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we proceed 
on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.

Thank you
-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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Michał Jastrzębski]

I think merging 2 repos is possible with keeping a history. Tonyb also
said that there will not be any issues with releasing z-streams. I
recall we kinda made a decision on summit that we keep ansible in
kolla tree as long as it's only stable deployment orchiestration tool,
and when second one appears (kube?), then we'll make a call about
merging it into main repo. I am also in favor of having one repo and
one core team, but for me it's important that everything we have in
main tree is stable and prod ready, which won't be the case for kube
for some time.

Cheers,
Michal

On 1 May 2016 at 19:56, Davanum Srinivas  wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Thanks for bringing up this decision-making to the open forum.
>
> This is a tough decision. "us vs them" i am hoping will not happen
> this time around as we'll watch out for that. since there has been
> talk about ansible getting split out eventually, splitting k8s into a
> separate repo would be the right decision. If we do need git surgery
> down the line, we can call on experts in our community :)
>
> So +1 to a separate repo.
>
> Thanks,
> Dims
>
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)  wrote:
>> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
>> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
>> repository.
>>
>> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one
>> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that list
>> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in
>> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I heard
>> were:
>>
>> Better integration of the community
>> Better integration of the code base
>> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened during
>> kolla-mesos
>> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment architecture
>> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>> Two gating methods versus one
>> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>>
>> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>>
>> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not be
>> deleted
>>
>> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed to
>> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is
>> the time for fixing that.
>>
>> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want to
>> work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
>> above.
>>
>> If you are on this list:
>>
>> Ryan Hallisey
>> Britt Houser
>>
>> mark casey
>>
>> Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>>
>> Michael Schmidt
>>
>> Marian Schwarz
>>
>> Andrew Battye
>>
>> Kevin Fox (kfox)
>>
>> Sidharth Surana (ssurana)
>>
>>  Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)
>>
>>   Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)
>>
>>   MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)
>>
>>   Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
>>
>>   Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)
>>
>>   Martin Andre (mandre)
>>
>>   Ian Main (Slower)
>>
>> Hui Kang (huikang)
>>
>> Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)
>>
>> Alex Polvi (polvi)
>>
>> Rob Mason
>>
>> Alicja Kwasniewska
>>
>> sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
>>
>> Keith Byrne (kbyrne)
>>
>> Zdenek Janda (xdeu)
>>
>> Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)
>>
>> Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
>> Jinay Vora
>> Hui Kang
>> Davanum Srinivas
>>
>>
>>
>> Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified
>> repository.
>>
>> The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we
>> proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.
>>
>> Thank you
>> -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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Davanum Srinivas]

Steve,

Thanks for bringing up this decision-making to the open forum.

This is a tough decision. "us vs them" i am hoping will not happen
this time around as we'll watch out for that. since there has been
talk about ansible getting split out eventually, splitting k8s into a
separate repo would be the right decision. If we do need git surgery
down the line, we can call on experts in our community :)

So +1 to a separate repo.

Thanks,
Dims


On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)  wrote:
> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
> repository.
>
> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one
> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that list
> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in
> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I heard
> were:
>
> Better integration of the community
> Better integration of the code base
> Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened during
> kolla-mesos
> A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment architecture
> without a voice in the full deployment methodology
> Two gating methods versus one
> No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>
> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>
> It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
> Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not be
> deleted
>
> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed to
> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is
> the time for fixing that.
>
> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want to
> work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
> above.
>
> If you are on this list:
>
> Ryan Hallisey
> Britt Houser
>
> mark casey
>
> Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>
> Michael Schmidt
>
> Marian Schwarz
>
> Andrew Battye
>
> Kevin Fox (kfox)
>
> Sidharth Surana (ssurana)
>
>  Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)
>
>   Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)
>
>   MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)
>
>   Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
>
>   Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)
>
>   Martin Andre (mandre)
>
>   Ian Main (Slower)
>
> Hui Kang (huikang)
>
> Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)
>
> Alex Polvi (polvi)
>
> Rob Mason
>
> Alicja Kwasniewska
>
> sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
>
> Keith Byrne (kbyrne)
>
> Zdenek Janda (xdeu)
>
> Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)
>
> Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
> Jinay Vora
> Hui Kang
> Davanum Srinivas
>
>
>
> Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified
> repository.
>
> The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we
> proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.
>
> Thank you
> -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
>



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

On 5/1/16, 4:22 PM, "Ryan Hallisey" <rhall...@redhat.com> wrote:

>I'm voting for separate repo.  I'm not keen to adding 20 new cores to a
>stable repo.  I'd prefer it to be in a different repo while it gets
>going.  Yes, we will lose some git history *if* we vote to merge it into
>the main repo.  It's not a guarantee.

Just to clarify this point, we are not adding people to kolla-core that
want to paricipate in this effort.  Instead they would go in the
kolla-k8s-core ACL but would have effective permissions over the entire
repo but with the caveat that these invidiuals only approve commits to the
kubernetes repository.

>
>If this were to go into the main repo, I think it becomes harder for both
>ansible and kubernetes to ever come out.  I'd rather start outside since
>it's easier to move in if we choose to do that.

You have failed to convince me having these orchesetration engines in
separate repos are a good idea. :)

Regards
-steve
>
>-Ryan
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
>To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
><openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 5:03:57 PM
>Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>
>Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
>morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
>repository. 
>
>I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon
>one off private conversations with folks at summit. Many people from that
>list approached me and indicated they would like to see the work
>integrated in one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email. The
>reasons I heard were:
>
>
>* Better integration of the community
>* Better integration of the code base
>* Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue
>happened during kolla-mesos
>* A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
>architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>* Two gating methods versus one
>* No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>
>
>* It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>* Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need
>not be deleted 
>There were other complaints but not many pros. Unfortunately I failed to
>communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now
>is the time for fixing that.
>
>I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want
>to work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
>above. 
>
>If you are on this list:
>
>
>
>* Ryan Hallisey
>* Britt Houser
>
>
>* mark casey 
>
>
>* Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>
>
>* Michael Schmidt
>
>
>* Marian Schwarz
>
>
>* Andrew Battye
>
>
>* Kevin Fox (kfox)
>
>
>* Sidharth Surana (ssurana)
>
>
>* Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)
>
>
>* Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)
>
>
>* MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)
>
>
>* Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
>
>
>* Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)
>
>
>* Martin Andre (mandre)
>
>
>* Ian Main (Slower)
>
>
>* Hui Kang (huikang)
>
>
>* Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)
>
>
>* Alex Polvi (polvi)
>
>
>* Rob Mason 
>
>
>* Alicja Kwasniewska
>
>
>* sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
>
>
>* Keith Byrne (kbyrne)
>
>
>* Zdenek Janda (xdeu)
>
>
>* Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)
>
>
>* Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
>* Jinay Vora 
>* Hui Kang 
>* Davanum Srinivas
>
>
>Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified
>repository. 
>
>The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we
>proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.
>
>Thank you 
>-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
>
>__
>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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Ihor Dvoretskyi]

I agree to with the described benefits of separating the repos and my +1
for a separated repo.

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Ryan Hallisey <rhall...@redhat.com> wrote:

> I'm voting for separate repo.  I'm not keen to adding 20 new cores to a
> stable repo.  I'd prefer it to be in a different repo while it gets going.
> Yes, we will lose some git history *if* we vote to merge it into the main
> repo.  It's not a guarantee.
>
> If this were to go into the main repo, I think it becomes harder for both
> ansible and kubernetes to ever come out.  I'd rather start outside since
> it's easier to move in if we choose to do that.
>
> -Ryan
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 5:03:57 PM
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>
> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
> repository.
>
> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one
> off private conversations with folks at summit. Many people from that list
> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in
> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email. The reasons I heard
> were:
>
>
> * Better integration of the community
> * Better integration of the code base
> * Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue
> happened during kolla-mesos
> * A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
> architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology
> * Two gating methods versus one
> * No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>
>
> * It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
> * Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need
> not be deleted
> There were other complaints but not many pros. Unfortunately I failed to
> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is
> the time for fixing that.
>
> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want
> to work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
> above.
>
> If you are on this list:
>
>
>
> * Ryan Hallisey
> * Britt Houser
>
>
> * mark casey
>
>
> * Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>
>
> * Michael Schmidt
>
>
> * Marian Schwarz
>
>
> * Andrew Battye
>
>
> * Kevin Fox (kfox)
>
>
> * Sidharth Surana (ssurana)
>
>
> * Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)
>
>
> * Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)
>
>
> * MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)
>
>
> * Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
>
>
> * Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)
>
>
> * Martin Andre (mandre)
>
>
> * Ian Main (Slower)
>
>
> * Hui Kang (huikang)
>
>
> * Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)
>
>
> * Alex Polvi (polvi)
>
>
> * Rob Mason
>
>
> * Alicja Kwasniewska
>
>
> * sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
>
>
> * Keith Byrne (kbyrne)
>
>
> * Zdenek Janda (xdeu)
>
>
> * Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)
>
>
> * Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
> * Jinay Vora
> * Hui Kang
> * Davanum Srinivas
>
>
> Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified
> repository.
>
> The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we
> proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.
>
> Thank you
> -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
>
> __
> 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
>



-- 
Best regards,

Ihor Dvoretskyi,
OpenStack Operations Engineer

---

Mirantis, Inc. (925) 808-FUEL
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Ryan Hallisey]

I'm voting for separate repo.  I'm not keen to adding 20 new cores to a stable 
repo.  I'd prefer it to be in a different repo while it gets going.  Yes, we 
will lose some git history *if* we vote to merge it into the main repo.  It's 
not a guarantee.

If this were to go into the main repo, I think it becomes harder for both 
ansible and kubernetes to ever come out.  I'd rather start outside since it's 
easier to move in if we choose to do that.

-Ryan

- Original Message -
From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 5:03:57 PM
Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am 
morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate 
repository. 

I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one off 
private conversations with folks at summit. Many people from that list 
approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in one 
repository as outlined in my vote proposal email. The reasons I heard were: 


* Better integration of the community 
* Better integration of the code base 
* Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened 
during kolla-mesos 
* A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment 
architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology 
* Two gating methods versus one 
* No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history 
I favor of the separate repositories I heard 


* It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone 
* Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not be 
deleted 
There were other complaints but not many pros. Unfortunately I failed to 
communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is the 
time for fixing that. 

I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want to 
work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems above. 

If you are on this list: 



* Ryan Hallisey 
* Britt Houser 


* mark casey 


* Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo) 


* Michael Schmidt 


* Marian Schwarz 


* Andrew Battye 


* Kevin Fox (kfox) 


* Sidharth Surana (ssurana) 


* Michal Rostecki (mrostecki) 


* Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap) 


* MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92) 


* Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot) 


* Jeff Peeler (jpeeler) 


* Martin Andre (mandre) 


* Ian Main (Slower) 


* Hui Kang (huikang) 


* Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk) 


* Alex Polvi (polvi) 


* Rob Mason 


* Alicja Kwasniewska 


* sean mooney (sean-k-mooney) 


* Keith Byrne (kbyrne) 


* Zdenek Janda (xdeu) 


* Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n) 


* Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya) 
* Jinay Vora 
* Hui Kang 
* Davanum Srinivas 


Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified 
repository. 

The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we proceed 
on the action of implementing kubernetes in general. 

Thank you 
-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

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

From: Michał Jastrzębski <inc...@gmail.com<mailto:inc...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:24 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two


While I'm not on this list, I'll speak up anyways:) on summit we agreed that we 
start from separate repo, and after kolla-k8s becomes stable, we either merge 
or not merge.

I'm for separate repo.

Keep in mind if we start with a seprate repo we cannot merge it into the main 
kolla repo without losing git history and it suffers from all the various 
problems of a separate repo.  But also core's are welcome to chime in.

Regard
-steve

On May 1, 2016 4:06 PM, "Steven Dake (stdake)" 
<std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am 
morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate 
repository.

I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one off 
private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that list 
approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in one 
repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I heard were:

  *   Better integration of the community
  *   Better integration of the code base
  *   Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened 
during kolla-mesos
  *   A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment 
architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology
  *   Two gating methods versus one
  *   No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history

I favor of the separate repositories I heard

  *   It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
  *   Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not be 
deleted

There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed to 
communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is the 
time for fixing that.

I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want to 
work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems above.

If you are on this list:


  *   Ryan Hallisey
  *   Britt Houser

  *   mark casey

  *   Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)

  *   Michael Schmidt

  *   Marian Schwarz

  *   Andrew Battye

  *   Kevin Fox (kfox)

  *   Sidharth Surana (ssurana)

  *Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)

  * Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)

  * MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)

  * Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)

  * Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)

  * Martin Andre (mandre)

  * Ian Main (Slower)

  *   Hui Kang (huikang)

  *   Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)

  *   Alex Polvi (polvi)

  *   Rob Mason

  *   Alicja Kwasniewska

  *   sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)

  *   Keith Byrne (kbyrne)

  *   Zdenek Janda (xdeu)

  *   Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)

  *   Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
  *   Jinay Vora
  *   Hui Kang
  *   Davanum Srinivas


Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified 
repository.

The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we proceed 
on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.

Thank you
-steve

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: 
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://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

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Michał Jastrzębski]

While I'm not on this list, I'll speak up anyways:) on summit we agreed
that we start from separate repo, and after kolla-k8s becomes stable, we
either merge or not merge.

I'm for separate repo.
On May 1, 2016 4:06 PM, "Steven Dake (stdake)"  wrote:

> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
>  repository.
>
> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one
> off private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that list
> approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in
> one repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I heard
> were:
>
>- Better integration of the community
>- Better integration of the code base
>- Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue
>happened during kolla-mesos
>- A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment
>architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology
>- Two gating methods versus one
>- No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history
>
> I favor of the separate repositories I heard
>
>- It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
>- Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need
>not be deleted
>
> There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed to
> communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is
> the time for fixing that.
>
> I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want
> to work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems
> above.
>
> If you are on this list:
>
>
>- Ryan Hallisey
>- Britt Houser
>
>
>- mark casey
>
>
>- Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)
>
>
>- Michael Schmidt
>
>
>- Marian Schwarz
>
>
>- Andrew Battye
>
>
>- Kevin Fox (kfox)
>
>
>- Sidharth Surana (ssurana)
>
>
>-  Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)
>
>
>-   Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)
>
>
>-   MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)
>
>
>-   Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)
>
>
>-   Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)
>
>
>-   Martin Andre (mandre)
>
>
>-   Ian Main (Slower)
>
>
>- Hui Kang (huikang)
>
>
>- Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)
>
>
>- Alex Polvi (polvi)
>
>
>- Rob Mason
>
>
>- Alicja Kwasniewska
>
>
>- sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)
>
>
>- Keith Byrne (kbyrne)
>
>
>- Zdenek Janda (xdeu)
>
>
>- Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)
>
>
>- Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
>- Jinay Vora
>- Hui Kang
>- Davanum Srinivas
>
>
>
> Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified
> repository.
>
> The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we
> proceed on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.
>
> Thank you
> -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
>
>
__
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-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two

[Steven Dake (stdake)]

Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am 
morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate 
repository.

I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one off 
private conversations with folks at summit.  Many people from that list 
approached me and indicated they would like to see the work integrated in one 
repository as outlined in my vote proposal email.  The reasons I heard were:

  *   Better integration of the community
  *   Better integration of the code base
  *   Doesn't present an us vs them mentality that one could argue happened 
during kolla-mesos
  *   A second repository makes k8s a second class citizen deployment 
architecture without a voice in the full deployment methodology
  *   Two gating methods versus one
  *   No going back to a unified repository while preserving git history

I favor of the separate repositories I heard

  *   It presents a unified workspace for kubernetes alone
  *   Packaging without ansible is simpler as the ansible directory need not be 
deleted

There were other complaints but not many pros.  Unfortunately I failed to 
communicate these complaints to the core team prior to the vote, so now is the 
time for fixing that.

I'll leave it open to the new folks that want to do the work if they want to 
work on an offshoot repository and open us up to the possible problems above.

If you are on this list:


  *   Ryan Hallisey
  *   Britt Houser

  *   mark casey

  *   Steven Dake (delta-alpha-kilo-echo)

  *   Michael Schmidt

  *   Marian Schwarz

  *   Andrew Battye

  *   Kevin Fox (kfox)

  *   Sidharth Surana (ssurana)

  *Michal Rostecki (mrostecki)

  * Swapnil Kulkarni (coolsvap)

  * MD NADEEM (mail2nadeem92)

  * Vikram Hosakote (vhosakot)

  * Jeff Peeler (jpeeler)

  * Martin Andre (mandre)

  * Ian Main (Slower)

  *   Hui Kang (huikang)

  *   Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk)

  *   Alex Polvi (polvi)

  *   Rob Mason

  *   Alicja Kwasniewska

  *   sean mooney (sean-k-mooney)

  *   Keith Byrne (kbyrne)

  *   Zdenek Janda (xdeu)

  *   Brandon Jozsa (v1k0d3n)

  *   Rajath Agasthya (rajathagasthya)
  *   Jinay Vora
  *   Hui Kang
  *   Davanum Srinivas


Please speak up if you are in favor of a separate repository or a unified 
repository.

The core reviewers will still take responsibility for determining if we proceed 
on the action of implementing kubernetes in general.

Thank you
-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