I +1 for split the kolla-k8s repo, too.
Here is the reason:
1. Kolla will be split into several repo in the future: kolla-docker,
kolla-ansible. So
if we use one repo for k8s, we will split it again. It will be more
painful to do this.
2. Normally, the kolla-docker, kolla-ansible and kolla-k8
Paul,
Just to be clear, we are not putting master on pause for 4-6 weeks to
split apart the repos to enable kubernetes development. The option on the
table at this point are
A) kolla repo as it exists today and empty repo for k8s
B) kolla repo as it exists today with kubernetes integrated
A paus
Having read through the full thread I'm still in support of separate
repos. I think the explanations Jeff Peeler and Adam Young have put
forward summarise my thoughts very well.
One of the main arguments I seem to be hearing for a single repo is Git
tooling which I don't think is a good one; w
On 05/02/2016 05:53 PM, Jeff Peeler wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 05/02/2016 03:05 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
Swapnil,
I gather this is what people want but this cannot be done with git and
maintain history. To do this, we would have to "cp oldrepo/file
they are needed/reasonable. This should be done
> >>regardless of if there are 1or 2 repo's in the end.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Kevin
> >>
> >>From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
> >
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:07 AM Steven Dake (stdake)
wrote:
> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
> morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
> repository.
>
> I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon
Well, I don't think we should rely on ansible's config generation. We
can't really as it's wired into ansible too much. jinja2 templates in
Dockerfiles aren't connected to ansible in any way and are perfectly
reusable.
On 2 May 2016 at 16:13, Qiu Yu wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Steve
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Steven Dake (stdake)
wrote:
> Yup but that didn't happen with kolla-mesos and I didn't catch it until 2
> weeks after it was locked in stone. At that point I asked for the ABI to
> be unified to which I got a "shrug" and no action.
>
> If it has been in one repo,
On 05/01/2016 05:03 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal
9am morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a
separate repository.
In Keystone, we are going to more and more repositories all the time.
We started wit
_
>>From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
>>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:14 AM
>>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>>
>>I persona
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Jeff Peeler wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 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 indicat
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 a
we do end up using it). We
>>can use some of what's in kolla as a starting point.
>>
>>I'd say the code overlap is a bootstrapping point for the project.
>>
>>-Ryan
>>
>>----- Original Message -
>>From: "Kevin M Fox"
>>To: "OpenSt
__
> From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:14 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>
> I personally would like to see one set of defaults fil
Kevin
From: Steven Dake (stdake) [std...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:14 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
I personally would like to see one set of defaults files fo
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) 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 re
gt;
>- Original Message -
>From: "Kevin M Fox"
>To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
>Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:56:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>
>One thing we didn&#x
al Message -
From: "Kevin M Fox"
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:56:22 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
One thing we didn't talk about too much at the summit is the part of
for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
On 5/1/16, 10:32 PM, "Swapnil Kulkarni" wrote:
>On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Britt Houser (bhouser)
> wrote:
>> Although it seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified r
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 03:05 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> Swapnil,
>>
>> I gather this is what people want but this cannot be done with git and
>> maintain history. To do this, we would have to "cp oldrepo/files to
>> newrepo/files" and the git
It seems for me that we have a dilemma between security (abstaining from
creating a core group which may overuse their rights in kolla repo) and
usability (not having multiple repos, which we experienced badly in the
kolla-mesos era).
I don't find the argument about having k8s ecosystem in sep
>I am in the favor of having two separate repos and evaluating the
>merge/split option later.
>Though in the longer run, I would recommend having a single repo with
>multiple stable deployment tools(maybe too early to comment views but
>yeah)
>
>Swapnil
>Swapnil,
>I gather this is what people wan
ot;
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
Ryan had rightly pointed out that when
;OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>
>> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>&g
t seems I'm in the minority, I am in favor of unified repo.
>>
>> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)"
>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>
>> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
>> To: "OpenStack
; Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
>
> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
> morning we had asked folk
May 1, 2016 at 5:03 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
morning we had as
I think merging 2 repos is possible with keeping a history. Tonyb also
said that there will not be any issues with releasing z-streams. I
recall we kinda made a decision on summit that we keep ansible in
kolla tree as long as it's only stable deployment orchiestration tool,
and when second one appe
Steve,
Thanks for bringing up this decision-making to the open forum.
This is a tough decision. "us vs them" i am hoping will not happen
this time around as we'll watch out for that. since there has been
talk about ansible getting split out eventually, splitting k8s into a
separate repo would be
onvince me having these orchesetration engines in
separate repos are a good idea. :)
Regards
-steve
>
>-Ryan
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Steven Dake (stdake)"
>To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
>Sent: Sund
t outside since
> it's easier to move in if we choose to do that.
>
> -Ryan
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
ailing List (not for usage questions)"
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 5:03:57 PM
Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
repository.
ons)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][kubernetes] One repo vs two
While I'm not on this list, I'll speak up anyways:) on summit we agreed that we
start from separate repo, and after kolla-k8s becomes stable, we either merge
or
While I'm not on this list, I'll speak up anyways:) on summit we agreed
that we start from separate repo, and after kolla-k8s becomes stable, we
either merge or not merge.
I'm for separate repo.
On May 1, 2016 4:06 PM, "Steven Dake (stdake)" wrote:
> Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we mad
Ryan had rightly pointed out that when we made the original proposal 9am
morning we had asked folks if they wanted to participate in a separate
repository.
I don't think a separate repository is the correct approach based upon one off
private conversations with folks at summit. Many people fro
35 matches
Mail list logo
