On 05/07/2015 06:01 AM, Giulio Fidente wrote:
On 05/07/2015 11:15 AM, marios wrote:
On 07/05/15 05:32, Dan Prince wrote:


Something like this:


+1 I like this as an idea. Given we've already got quite a few reviews
in flight making changes to overcloud_controller.pp (we're still working
out how to, and enabling services) I'd be happier to let those land and
have the tidy up once it settles (early next week at the latest) -
especially since there's some working out+refactoring to do still,

+1 on not block ongoing work

as of today a split would cause the two .pp to have a lot of duplicated
data, making them not better than one with the ifs IMHO

I'm with Giulio here. I'm not as strong on my puppet as everyone else, but I don't see the current approach as duplication, it's just passing in different configurations.

we should probably move out of the existing .pp the duplicated parts
first (see my other email on the matter)

My bigger concern is Tuskar. It has the ability to set parameters. It's hasn't moved to a model where you're configuring the overcloud through selecting entries in the resource registry. I can see that making sense in the future, but that's going to require API changes.

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to