Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

Josh, The Kata team is talking to QEMU maintainers about how best to move forward. Specially around stripping down things that's not needed for their use case. They are not adding code from what i got to know (just removing stuff). -- Dims On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

Slightly off topic but, Have you by any chance looked at what kata has forked for qemu: https://github.com/kata-containers/qemu/tree/qemu-lite-2.11.0 I'd be interested in an audit of that code for similar reasons to this libvirt fork (hard to know from my view point if there are new issues in

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 01:54:59PM -0500, Dean Troyer wrote: > StarlingX (aka STX) was announced this week at the summit, there is a > PR to create project repos in Gerrit at [0]. STX is basically Wind From a cursory look at the libvirt fork, there are some questionable choices. E.g. the config

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:41:18PM -0400, Brian Haley wrote: > On 05/22/2018 04:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: [...] > > Please don't take this the wrong way, Dean, but you aren't seriously > > suggesting that anyone outside of Windriver/Intel would ever contribute > > to these repos are you? > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Tim Bell wrote: > I'd like to understand the phrase "StarlingX is an OpenStack Foundation Edge > focus area project". > > My understanding of the current situation is that "StarlingX would like to be > OpenStack Foundation Edge focus area

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

age questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 11:08 To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

> For example, I look at your nova fork and it has a "don't allow this > call during an upgrade" decorator on many API calls. Why wasn't that > done upstream? It doesn't seem overly controversial, so it would be > useful to understand the reasoning for that change. Interesting. We have internal

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 23/05/18 11:25, Dean Troyer wrote: On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Julia Kreger wrote: There is definitely value to be gained for both projects in terms of a different point of view that might not have been able to play out in Ironic is a bit different in

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

I think a good start would be a concrete list of the places you felt you needed to change upstream and the specific reasons for each that it wasn't done as part of the community. For example, I look at your nova fork and it has a "don't allow this call during an upgrade" decorator on many API

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Brian Haley wrote: > Even doing that is work - going through changes, finding nuggets, proposing > new specs I don't think we can expect a project to even go there, it has > to be driven by someone already involved in StarlingX, IMHO. In

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 2018-05-23 15:20:28 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote: > On 05/23/2018 02:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2018-05-22 17:41:18 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote: > > [...] > > > I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from > > > StarlingX into upstream repos. That

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 05/23/2018 02:00 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2018-05-22 17:41:18 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote: [...] I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from StarlingX into upstream repos. That seems backwards from how this should have been done (i.e. upstream first),

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Wed, May 23, 2018, at 8:07 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Colleen Murphy wrote: > > It's also important to make the distinction between hosting something on > > openstack.org infrastructure and recognizing it in an official capacity. > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > Rather than literally making this a priority, I expect most of the feeling > is that because of the politics and pressure of competition with a fork in > another foundation is driving the defensiveness about feeling

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Julia Kreger wrote: > There is definitely value to be gained for both projects in terms of a > different point of view that might not have been able to play out in Ironic is a bit different in this regard to the released code since

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 5/23/2018 11:00 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: I have yet to see anyone suggest it should be prioritized over other work. I expect the extracted and proposed changes/specs corresponding to the divergence would be viewed on their own merits just like any other change and ignored, reviewed,

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Colleen Murphy wrote: > It's also important to make the distinction between hosting something on > openstack.org infrastructure and recognizing it in an official capacity. > StarlingX is seeking both, but in my opinion the code hosting is

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 2018-05-23 13:48:56 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote: [...] > I believe you may be confusing packages (or package specs) with > distributions? > > Mirantis OpenStack was never hosted on an openstack > infrastructure. Fuel is, as are deb spec files and Puppet > manifests, etc. But the

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 2018-05-22 17:41:18 -0400 (-0400), Brian Haley wrote: [...] > I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from > StarlingX into upstream repos. That seems backwards from how this should > have been done (i.e. upstream first), and I don't see how a project would >

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Brian Haley wrote: > On 05/22/2018 04:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: [trim] > I read this the other way - the goal is to get all the forked code from > StarlingX into upstream repos. That seems backwards from how this should > have been done (i.e.

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 05/23/2018 12:49 PM, Colleen Murphy wrote: On Tue, May 22, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: Are any of the distributions of OpenStack listed at https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/distros/ hosted on openstack.org infrastructure? No. And I think that is completely appropriate. Hang

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 2018-05-23 18:49:16 +0200 (+0200), Colleen Murphy wrote: [...] > It's also important to make the distinction between hosting > something on openstack.org infrastructure and recognizing it in an > official capacity. StarlingX is seeking both, but in my opinion > the code hosting is not the

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 5/23/2018 9:49 AM, Colleen Murphy wrote: Hang on, that's not quite true. From that list I see Mirantis, Debian, Ubuntu, and RedHat, who all have (or had until recently) significant parts of their distros hosted on openstack.org infrastructure and are/were even official OpenStack projects

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On Tue, May 22, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > Are any of the distributions of OpenStack listed at > https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/distros/ hosted on openstack.org > infrastructure? No. And I think that is completely appropriate. Hang on, that's not quite true. From that list

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

Also I am concerned that the repo just seems to have mega-commits like: https://github.com/starlingx-staging/stx-glance/commit/1ec64167057e3368f27a1a81aca294b771e79c5e https://github.com/starlingx-staging/stx-nova/commit/71acfeae0d1c59fdc77704527d763bd85a276f9a (not so mega)

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

On 05/22/2018 04:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: Warning: strong opinions ahead. On 05/22/2018 02:54 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: Developers will need to re-create a repo locally in order to work or test the code and create reviews (there are more git challenges here). It would be challenging to do

Re: [openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

Warning: strong opinions ahead. On 05/22/2018 02:54 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: Developers will need to re-create a repo locally in order to work or test the code and create reviews (there are more git challenges here). It would be challenging to do functional testing on the rest of STX in CI

[openstack-dev] [StarlingX] StarlingX code followup discussions

StarlingX (aka STX) was announced this week at the summit, there is a PR to create project repos in Gerrit at [0]. STX is basically Wind River's Titanium Cloud product, which is a turn-key cloud deployment. For background I have started putting notes, some faq-ish questions and references to