Thank you, Helen.
Lingli From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Yunxia Chen Sent: 2017年9月20日 14:01 To: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] [tsc]Vote: ONAP Deployment Proposal for Amsterdam Release Update for Heat template related deployment: We had three meetings with PLTs / key contributors of those projects, which have not been deployed with heat template. And we cleared out all technical concerns, including MSB, VFC, MultiVim, UUI, and we reached the consensus to finish all related work before M4. https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+Installation+Strategy+for+Release+A Regards, Helen Chen From: Helen Chen 00725961 <helen.c...@huawei.com <mailto:helen.c...@huawei.com> > Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM To: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org <mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> > Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] [tsc]Vote: ONAP Deployment Proposal for Amsterdam Release Sorry for some confusion here. Let me make two clarification: 1. This is for “ONAP TSC Voting Member” to vote 2. This is asking TSC Voting member to approve that integration team will use Heat template for deploying three approved use cases, and main tools in Integration lab, in ONAP Amsterdam release, not vote OOM be out of ONAP Amsterdam release. Therefore we could prioritize our resource for integration testing. And OOM will be our solution for Beijing release. Let me re-phrase the voting sentence: Dear ONAP TSC Voting Members, please send your email vote for “whether you approve using Heat template as ONAP platform gating deployment strategy in Amsterdam Release”, options are: +1: approve 0: no opinion -1: disapprove Due: 9/20/2017, 6:00PM PDT Kenny, please help us collect the result. Regards, Helen Chen Original Mail Sender: <helen.c...@huawei.com <mailto:helen.c...@huawei.com> >; To: <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org <mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> >; Date: 2017/09/19 08:03 Subject: [onap-tsc] [tsc]Vote: ONAP Deployment Proposal for Amsterdam Release Dear ONAP TSC Members, We had several discussion sessions regarding “Heat template vs OOM” with PTLs, a lot of emails follow ups in past 4+ weeks, and we also tested OOM and Heat template in Integration lab in past two weeks. Here are our conclusions: 1. Heat template deployment is more mature than OOM with Kubernetes at this moment 2. Most of the OpenECOMP projects have done integration test with Heat template while Kubernetes based has not done any 3. PTLs / key developers feel less comfortable to “learn” a new tool at this time Based on above reasons, Integration team recommends to use Heat template as ONAP platform deployment strategy in Amsterdam Release. Please send your email vote for “whether you approve using Heat template as ONAP platform deployment strategy in Amsterdam Release”, options are: +1: approve 0: no opinion -1: disapprove Due: 9/20/2017, 6:00PM PDT. Kenny, please help us collect the result. The result will impact our integration testing priority and integration lab resource allocation priority. Regards, Helen Chen _______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org <mailto:ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=KSR6PrsZRiEmjmaij5MmjZycgerqLf-CNiNMJg6x4WU&s=JqX3STNDf0aFULBkDOCsgxS0u2W7xLmRl2Sr0OjfPzs&e> &d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=IKSC5mg8GeOiSar1dax3GQ&m=KSR6PrsZRiEmjmaij5MmjZycgerqLf-CNiNMJg6x4WU&s=JqX3STNDf0aFULBkDOCsgxS0u2W7xLmRl2Sr0OjfPzs&e=
_______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
