As an open source project that can be used for deployments outside of Mirantis, it would be good for the community if someone could use Fuel to deploy onto other operating systems if the appropriate deployment logic were added. In other words, the project should not explicitly deny the ability to extend the control plane to other operating systems. However, it¹s very reasonable for any company, like Mirantis, that provides a product to include the list of supported operating systems in a config file or parameter. The Fuel project would then error out if the OS name was not in that list. I¹d even be ok with that file containing the Mirantis supported operating systems by default, but that could be changed by a community member for their own distribution.
It would obviously fall to the community to add in the additional code/logic to deploy on other operating systems but the Fuel project shouldn¹t deny that opportunity. Thanks, - David J. Easter Director of Product Management, Mirantis From: Nikolay Markov <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 9:19 AM To: Evgeniy L <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Fuel-dev] Custom OSes in release >> What kind of issue it will help to avoid? To avoid getting our customers in trouble. >> in my case user can just add it No, he can't. It won't work. The sooner he will know it the better. >> there will be a lot of failed deployments during development and debugging anyway Why? No, it won't. We don't have cases where we need to modify it by hands and see what happens, because we already have strict list of OSes we support. And if someone of our clients or deployment engineers does that - it will be better for him to know this won't work from the beginning, isn't it? On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Evgeniy L <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> to avoid all possible issues > > What kind of issue it will help to avoid? > > I want to avoid constraints where they are not required, in your case user > have to add new migration file and then migrate database to add new field in > enum, in my case user can just add it. In your and mine cases user have to add > additional logic in our serializers and there will be a lot of failed > deployments during development and debugging anyway. > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Nikolay Markov <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello colleagues, >> >> What is our policy regarding specifying custom OS names in releases in >> openstack.yaml or via API? I mean, we only support two OSes, which are CentOS >> and Ubuntu, and already have some OS-based logic in our code, which will just >> not execute if OS name is 'Suse', for example. >> >> Evgeny Li says we should allow specifying custom names, currently it causes >> no errors until you try to deploy an environment with this release. >> >> I think in this case we may implement this as a ENUM in DB and forbid >> creating releases with different OS names at all, to avoid all possible >> issues. >> >> What do you think? >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Nick Markov >> >> -- >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > -- Best regards, Nick Markov -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
