On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Steven Dake <steven.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:26 AM, James Slagle <james.sla...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> > James, > >> >> Just to frame the conversation with a bit more context, I'm sure there >> are many individual features/bugs/special handling that TripleO and >> Kolla both do today that the other does not. >> > > I think what you are saying in a nutshell is that TripleO and Kolla compete.
No. That is not what I'm saying. In fact I said: <quote> It's not really about competition between tools.</quote> I'm not sure how you thought that meant I was saying that the two tools compete. Some may consider that to be the case (that they compete), but that is more a personal frame of reference. I don't think that either project is trying to "win" the deployment battle. Or there even is a battle. If that were the case, it would be very difficult to work together, as we do effectively quite a bit today already. >> TripleO had about a 95% solution for deploying OpenStack when >> kolla-ansible did not exist and was started from scratch. But, kolla >> made a choice based around tooling, which I contend is perfectly valid >> given that we are creating deployment tools. Part of the individual >> value in each deployment project is the underlying tooling itself. >> > > I think what you are saying here is Kolla chose to compete on tooling. I > haven't really given it a lot of thought; I'd say all are technical choices > made with Kolla had mostly to do with selecting wisely from the technical > ecosystem. No. What I'm saying is exactly what I wrote. Please don't read or project anything else onto it about "competition". Again, I don't think that is all that relevant or healthy to the conversation (hence why I dismissed the comic: it's a farce of the actual situation). I see it more as differentiation instead of competition. Especially since we are talking about open source projects. There are advantages and disadvantages to every tool choice, including Heat vs Ansible. What I said was that "kolla made a choice based around tooling". And that is a valid thing to do and creates individual value to that project that differentiates it from TripleO. >> I think what TripleO is trying to do here is not immediately jump to a >> solution that uses Helm and explore what alternatives exist. Even if >> the project chooses not to use Helm I still see room for collaboration >> on code beneath the Helm/whatever layer. >> > > I believe it wise that you don't jump to any conclusion or solution that > does or doesn't use Helm. I'd encourage you to understand how Kubernetes > works before making such technical choices. Exactly. Which is why "just use kolla-kubernetes" is not a silver bullet to this discussion. > All that said, there is clearly value in working together rather than apart. > To me, that is more important then the technical choices you are presented > with. -- -- James Slagle -- __________________________________________________________________________ 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
