+1 for the thread, I would also like to hear from Mirantis on this. The Fork on fuel/puppet has been actively seen patching and consolidation.It seems like parallel effort why not merge it.
regards /sanjay On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Before reading this e-mail, please keep in mind: > > * I have a lot of admiration for Fuel and since I'm working on OpenStack > Installers (at eNovance and now Red Hat), Fuel is something I always > consider a good product. > * This e-mail is about Fuel and Puppet, nothing about Mirantis. > * I'm writing on behalf of my thoughts, and not on our group. > * I'm using open mailing-list for open discussion. There is not bad > spirit in this e-mail and I want to have a productive thread. > > I have some concerns I would like to share with you and hopefully find > some solutions together. > > Since I've been working on Puppet OpenStack (2 years now), I see some > situations that happen - according to me - too often: > > * A bug is reported in both Fuel Library and the Puppet module having > trouble. A patch is provided in Fuel Library (your fork of Puppet > OpenStack modules) but not in Puppet upstream module. That means you fix > the bug for Fuel, and not for Puppet OpenStack community. It does not > happen all the time but quite often. > > * A patch is submitted in a Puppet module and quite often does not land > because there is no activity, no tests or is abandonned later because > fixed in Fuel Library. I've noticed the patch is fixed in Fuel Library > though. > > * RAW copy/paste between upstream modules code and your forks. In term > of Licensing, I'm even not sure you have the right to do that (I'm not a > CLA expert though) but well... in term of authorship and statistics on > code, I'm not sure it's fair. Using submodules with custom patches would > have been great to respect the authors who created the original code and > you could have personalize the manifests. > > Note: you can see that I don't give any example because I'm not here to > blame people or judge anyone. > > So the goal of my e-mail is to open the discussion and have a *real* > collaboration between Fuel team which seems to have a lot of good Puppet > engineers and Puppet OpenStack team. > > We had this kind of discussion at the Summit (in Vancouver and also > Paris, and even before). Now I would like to officialy know if you are > interested or not to be more involved. > I'm also open at any feedback about Puppet OpenStack group and if > something blocks you to contribute more. > > We have the same goals, having Puppet modules better. I think it can be > win/win: you have less diff with upstream and we have more hands in our > module maintenance. > Thank you for reading so far, and I'm looking forward to reading from you. > > Best regards, > -- > 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 > > -- Sanjay Upadhyay http://saneax.blogspot.com
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
