On 10/19/18 8:04 PM, Alex Schultz wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:53 AM James Slagle <james.sla...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:14 AM Alex Schultz <aschu...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Additionally I took a stab at combining the puppet/docker service >>> definitions for the aodh services in a similar structure to start >>> reducing the overhead we've had from maintaining the docker/puppet >>> implementations seperately. You can see the patch >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/611188/ for an additional example of >>> this. >> That patch takes the approach of removing baremetal support. Is that >> what we agreed to do? >> > Since it's deprecated since Queens[0], yes? I think it is time to stop > continuing this method of installation. Given that I'm not even sure > the upgrade process even works anymore with baremetal, I don't think > there's a reason to keep it as it directly impacts the time it takes > to perform deployments and also contributes to increased complexity > all around. > > [0] > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-September/122248.html As an advantage to removing baremetal support, our nested stack usage would be a little lighter and this might actually help out deployment times and resource usage. I like the idea of going ahead and starting to flatten the stacks for our services. > >> I'm not specifically opposed, as I'm pretty sure the baremetal >> implementations are no longer tested anywhere, but I know that Dan had >> some concerns about that last time around. >> >> The alternative we discussed was using jinja2 to include common >> data/tasks in both the puppet/docker/ansible implementations. That >> would also result in reducing the number of Heat resources in these >> stacks and hopefully reduce the amount of time it takes to >> create/update the ServiceChain stacks. >> > I'd rather we officially get rid of the one of the two methods and > converge on a single method without increasing the complexity via > jinja to continue to support both. If there's an improvement to be had > after we've converged on a single structure for including the base > bits, maybe we could do that then? > > Thanks, > -Alex > >> -- >> -- 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 > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
