Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-09-26 14:43:40 -0700: > Hi James, thanks for the corrections/explanations. A comment inline (and > a further question) :) > > On 09/26/2014 05:35 PM, James Slagle wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Heh, I just got off the phone with Monty talking about this :) Comments > >> inline... > >> > >> On 09/22/2014 03:11 PM, Tim Bell wrote: > >>> > >>> The quality designation is really important for the operator > >>> community who are trying to work out what we can give to our end > >>> users. > >> > >> > >> So, I think it's important to point out here that there are three different > >> kinds of operators/deployers: > >> > >> * Ones who use a distribution of OpenStack (RDO, UCA, MOS, Nebula, > >> Piston, > >> etc) > >> * Ones who use Triple-O > >> * Ones who go it alone and install (via source, a mixture of source and > >> packages, via config management like Chef or Puppet, etc) > > > > I'm not sure TripleO fits in this list. It is not just a collection of > > prescriptive OpenStack bits used to do a deployment. TripleO is > > tooling to build OpenStack to deploy OpenStack. You can use whatever > > "source" (packages, distribution, released tarballs, straight from > > git) you want to build that OpenStack. TripleO could deploy your first > > or third bullet item. > > OK, fair point, thanks for that added bit of description. > > >> In reality, you are referring to the last group, since operators in the > >> first group are saying "we are relying on a distribution to make informed > >> choices about what is ready for prime time because we tested these things > >> together". Operators in the second group are really only HP right now, > >> AFAICT, and Triple-O's "opinion" on the production readiness of the things > >> it deploys in the undercloud are roughly equal to "all of the integrated > >> release that the TC defines". > > > > FWIW, TripleO offers deploying using distributions, by installing from > > packages from the RDO repositories. There's nothing RDO specific about > > it though, any packaged OpenStack distribution could be installed with > > the TripleO tooling. RDO is just likely the most well tested. > > Oh, good to know. Sorry, my information about Triple-O's undercloud > setup is clearly outdated. I thought that the undercloud was build from > source repositories devstack-style. Thanks for hitting me with a > cluestick. :) > > > Even when not installing via a distribution, and either directly from > > trunk or the integrated release tarballs, I don't know that any > > TripleO opinion enters into it. TripleO uses the integrated projects > > of OpenStack to deploy an overcloud. In an overcloud, you may see > > support for some incubated projects, depending on if there's interest > > from the community for that support. > > OK, interesting. So, in summary, Triple-O really doesn't offer much of a > "this is production-ready" stamp to anything based on whether it deploys > a project or not. So, operators who deploy with Triple-O would be in the > "you're on your own" camp from the bulleted list above. Would that be a > fair statement?
The one thing that builds an overcloud in a prescriptive manner is called 'tripleo-incubator' precisely because we don't believe it is ready to be called a release. It does focus on testing the integrated release only though, and so is closer to your original #2. It's just important to note that this is just our own distribution, and does not fully represent the whole output of the program. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev