On 09/28/2015 08:31 AM, David Moreau Simard wrote: > puppet-ceph currently lives in stackforge [1] which is being retired > [2]. puppet-ceph is also mirrored on the Ceph Github organization [3]. > This version of the puppet-ceph module was created from scratch and > not as a fork of the (then) upstream puppet-ceph by Enovance [4]. > Today, the version by Enovance is no longer officially maintained > since Red Hat has adopted the new release. > > Being an Openstack project under Stackforge or Openstack brings a lot > of benefits but it's not black and white, there are cons too. > > It provides us with the tools, the processes and the frameworks to > review and test each contribution to ensure we ship a module that is > stable and is held to the highest standards. > But it also means that: > - We forego some level of ownership back to the Openstack foundation, > it's technical committee and the Puppet Openstack PTL. > - puppet-ceph contributors will also be required to sign the > Contributors License Agreement and jump through the Gerrit hoops [5] > which can make contributing to the project harder. > > We have put tremendous efforts into creating a quality module and as > such it was the first puppet module in the stackforge organization to > implement not only unit tests but also integration tests with third > party CI. > Integration testing for other puppet modules are just now starting to > take shape by using the Openstack CI inrastructure. > > In the context of Openstack, RDO already ships with a mean to install > Ceph with this very module and Fuel will be adopting it soon as well. > This means the module will benefit from real world experience and > improvements by the Openstack community and packagers. > This will help further reinforce that not only Ceph is the best > unified storage solution for Openstack but that we have means to > deploy it in the real world easily. > > We all know that Ceph is also deployed outside of this context and > this is why the core reviewers make sure that contributions remain > generic and usable outside of this use case. > > Today, the core members of the project discussed whether or not we > should move puppet-ceph to the Openstack big tent and we had a > consensus approving the move. > We would also like to hear the thoughts of the community on this topic. > > Please let us know what you think. There was some discussion a while back around whether or not to bring those modules into the project which provide support for OpenStack-related tools which were not part of OpenStack themselves. The specific example at that time was the puppet-midonet module.
Unfortunately the consensus was to not allow these modules in. I think now, as I did then, that there is a lot of value in bringing some of these things into the project, as so many of our implementations depend on them. I also understand the other perspective, but think any concerns could be addressed by building some formal criteria about what third party tools are 'blessed'. I look forward to seeing feedback from the rest of the community on this. Regards, Richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
