On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 at 12:25 Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:37 AM, Dan Prince <dpri...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Much of the work on this is already there. We've been using this stuff >> for over a year to dev/test the containerization efforts for a long >> time now (and thanks for your help with this effort). The problem I >> think is how it is all packaged. While you can use it today it >> involves some tricks (docker in docker), or requires you to use an >> extra VM to minimize the installation footprint on your laptop. >> >> Much of the remaining work here is really just about packaging and >> technical debt. If we put tripleoclient and heat-monolith into a >> container that solves much of the requirements problems and >> essentially gives you a container which can transform Heat templates >> to Ansible. From the ansible side we need to do a bit more work to >> mimimize our dependencies (i.e. heat hooks). Using a virtual-env would >> be one option for developers if we could make that work. I lighter set >> of RPM packages would be another way to do it. Perhaps both... >> Then a smaller wrapper around these things (which I personally would >> like to name) to make it all really tight. > > > So if I summarize the discussion: > > - A lot of positive feedback about the idea and many use cases, which is > great. > > - Support for non-containerized services is not required, as long as we > provide a way to update containers with under-review patches for developers. > Hrm.. I was just speaking to Alfredo about this. We may need to have a better understanding of the various ecosystems where TripleO is in play here to have a fully informed decision. By ecosystem I'm referring to RDO, centos, and upstream and the containers used in deployments. I suspect a non-containerized deployment may still be required, but looking for the packaging team to weigh in. > > - We'll probably want to breakdown the "openstack undercloud deploy" > process into pieces > * start an ephemeral Heat container > * create the Heat stack passing all requested -e's > * run config-download and save the output > > And then remove undercloud specific logic, so we can provide a generic > way to create the config-download playbooks. > This generic way would be consumed by the undercloud deploy commands but > also by the new all-in-one wrapper. > > - Speaking of the wrapper, we will probably have a new one. Several names > were proposed: > * openstack tripleo deploy > * openstack talon deploy > * openstack elf deploy > > - The wrapper would work with deployed-server, so we would noop Neutron > networks and use fixed IPs. > > - Investigate the packaging work: containerize tripleoclient and > dependencies, see how we can containerized Ansible + dependencies (and > eventually reduce them at strict minimum). > > Let me know if I missed something important, hopefully we can move things > forward during this cycle. > -- > Emilien Macchi > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
