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" <jpee...@redhat.com> wrote: >On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com> >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 __________________________________________________________________________ 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
