On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 28/07/16 15:48 +0300, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote: > >> 1. Alter the mission statement of fuel to match the reality being >>> >> >> published by the press and Mirantis's executive team >>> >> >> 2. Include these non-experimental repos in the projects.yaml governance >>> >> >> Repository >>> >> >> Frankly, I don’t understand what part of the press release contradicts >> with >> Fuel mission. >> >> Current Fuel mission is “To streamline and accelerate the process of >> deploying, testing and maintaining various configurations of OpenStack at >> scale.” which means we are not bound to any specific technology when >> deploying OpenStack. >> > > TBH, I also think this statement is broad enough to cover containers. > Unless the > request is to explicitly mention "containers" in the mission statement, I > think > there's no need to change it. I'd also be against having "containers" being > explicitly mentioned in Fuel's statement, FWIW. I don't think it'd be of > any > benefit/use. Unless I'm missing something fundamental here, of course. I agree that the current mission statement seems fine. > > At the moment Fuel deploys RPM/DEB packages using Puppet and Fuel specific >> orchestration mechanism. We are not going to drop this approach >> immediately, it works quite well and we are working hard to make things >> better (including ability to upgrade). But we also keep in mind that >> technologies are constantly changing and we’d like to benefit of this >> progress. That is why we are now looking at Docker containers and >> Kubernetes. Our users know that it is not our first experience of trying >> to >> use containers. Fuel releases prior to 9.0 used to deploy Fuel services in >> containers on the Fuel admin node. >> >> Many of you know how difficult it is to upgrade OpenStack clusters. We >> hope >> that containers could help us to solve not all but some of problems that >> we >> encounter when upgrading cluster. Maintaining and hence upgrade of >> OpenStack clusters is a part of Fuel mission and we are just trying to >> find >> a way how to do things. >> >> Why not Kolla but Fuel-ccp? It is not a secret that Fuel is driven by >> Mirantis. At Mirantis we deploy and maintain OpenStack. In attempts to >> find >> a way how to make OpenStack easily maintainable, some of Mirantis folks >> spent some time to contribute to Kolla and Mesos. But there were some >> concerns that were discussed several times (including this Kolla spec >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330575) that would make it not so easy >> to >> use Kolla containers for our use cases. Fuel-ccp is just an attempt to >> address these concerns. Frankly, I don’t see anything bad in having more >> than one set of container images (like we have more than one set of >> RPM/DEB >> distributions). >> > > ++ > I think the project seems fine. They are clearly aware of Kolla. If they don't want to use it (for whatever the reason), I don't think it matters. OpenStack deployment is far from a well solved problem. We have plenty of overlapping deployment related projects and I'm happy to see that continue. Ongoing experimentation with different approaches is a good thing here. To summarize, I see all actions taken so far by the Fuel team as fine. I see no need to change anything in governance. They are free to add it as an official deliverable if and when they choose to do so. Even if they have a vision of these things becoming official and supported in the future, that does not mean they must mark them that way today. -- Russell Bryant
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
