On 06/28/2017 03:03 PM, Steven Hardy wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ben Nemec <openst...@nemebean.com> wrote:
A few weeks later than I had planned, but here's the other half of the field
feedback I mentioned in my previous email:
* They very emphatically want in-place upgrades to work when moving from
non-containerized to containerized. I think this is already the plan, but I
told them I'd make sure development was aware of the desire.
It is the plan, and already has basic CI coverage via
gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-containers-multinode-upgrades-nv
At this point we need more testing of production-like deployments but
in general this is expected to work.
Okay, that's what I thought and told them initially, but they feel quite
strongly about this so I told them I would check. Job done. :-)
* There was also great interest in contributing back some of the custom
templates that they've had to write to get advanced features working in the
field. Here again we recommended that they start with an RFE so things
could be triaged appropriately. I'm hoping we can find some developer time
to help polish and shepherd these things through the review process.
* Policy configuration was discussed, and I pointed them at some recent work
we have done around that:
https://docs.openstack.org/developer/tripleo-docs/advanced_deployment/api_policies.html
I'm not sure it fully addressed their issues, but I suggested they take a
closer look and provide feedback on any ways it doesn't meet their needs.
The specific use case they were looking at right now was adding a read-only
role. They did provide me with a repo containing their initial work, but
unfortunately it's private to Red Hat so I can't share it here.
* They wanted to be able to maintain separate role files instead of one
monolithic roles_data.yaml. Apparently they have a pre-deploy script now
that essentially concatenates some individual files to get this
functionality. I think this has already been addressed by
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445687
Yes this is already possible, but only via the CLI - that feature
needs porting to tripleo-common so that it can be consumed by
tripleo-ui, which was discussed but I'm not sure on the latest status.
* They've also been looking at ways to reorganize the templates in a more
intuitive fashion. At first glance the changes seemed reasonable, but they
were still just defining the layout. I don't know that they've actually
tried to use the reorganized templates yet and given the number of relative
paths in tht I suspect it may be a bigger headache than they expect, but I
thought it was interesting. There may at least be elements of this work
that we can use to make the templates easier to understand for deployers.
More information on this would be helpful, e.g what specific issues
they are trying to solve and the layout they found to be better and
why?
Looking at the contents of the repo again I'm not sure they actually
rearranged tht at all. I think they may just have been defining a
structure for their environment files and role definitions. I probably
need to follow up with them when they have a little more concrete idea
of what they want to do around this.
__________________________________________________________________________
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
