On 01/24/2016 03:02 AM, Matthew Mosesohn wrote: > I would personally like to see Keystone get transitioned first, but it > really doesn't matter where we start if we reach the right goal in the > end. Since Emelien's work on refactoring all the providers for > puppet-keystone, it has become a test bed for project-wide features. I'm > really excited to see consistency in oslo config across services, so > keep up the good work!
I also think puppet-keystone would be a good place to start. We have our Puppet Sprint [1] right now, maybe we could start working on it? Let us know if you can participate or when do you plan to continue the work on puppet-oslo; we can also provide any help that is needed. Thanks, [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/puppet-happy-new-year-2016 > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Xingchao Yu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi, all: > > I spend some times to collect oslo.* versions of openstack > projects(which has related puppet module), please check it in > following table: > > https://github.com/openstack/puppet-oslo#module-description > > From the table, we can find most of oslo.* libraries are the > same among the openstack projects(except aodh, gnocchi). > > So from the table, we could use puppet-oslo to replace > configuration of oslo.* in related modules gradually. > > Thanks & Regards. > > > 2016-01-21 23:58 GMT+08:00 Emilien Macchi <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > > > On 01/21/2016 08:15 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Cody Herriges's message of 2016-01-19 15:50:05 > -0800: > >> Colleen Murphy wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Xingchao Yu > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, Emilien: > >>> > >>> Thanks for your efforts on this topic, I didn't > attend V > >>> release summit and missed related discussion about > puppet-oslo. > >>> > >>> As the reason for not using a unified way to manage > oslo_* > >>> parameters is there maybe exist different oslo_* version > between > >>> openstack projects. > >>> > >>> I have an idea to solve this potential problem,we > can maintain > >>> several versions of puppet-oslo, each module can map to > different > >>> version of puppet-oslo. > >>> > >>> It would be something like follows: (the map info is > not true, > >>> just for example) > >>> > >>> In Mitaka release > >>> puppet-nova maps to puppet-oslo with 8.0.0 > >>> puppet-designate maps to puppet-oslo with 7.0.0 > >>> puppet-murano maps to puppet-oslo with 6.0.0 > >>> > >>> In Newton release > >>> puppet-nova maps to puppet-oslo with 9.0.0 > >>> puppet-designate maps to puppet-oslo with 9.0.0 > >>> puppet-murano maps to puppet-oslo with 7.0.0 > >>> > >>> For the simplest case of puppet infrastructure > configuration, which is a > >>> single puppetmaster with one environment, you cannot have > multiple > >>> versions of a single puppet module installed. This means you > absolutely > >>> cannot have an openstack infrastructure depend on having > different > >>> versions of a single module installed. In your example, a > user would not > >>> be able to use both puppet-nova and puppet-designate since > they are > >>> using different versions of the puppet-oslo module. > >>> > >>> When we put out puppet modules, we guarantee that version > X.x.x of a > >>> given module works with the same version of every other > module, and this > >>> proposal would totally break that guarantee. > >>> > >> > >> How does OpenStack solve this issue? > >> > >> * Do they literally install several different versions of the > same > >> python library? > >> * Does every project vendor oslo? > >> * Is the oslo library its self API compatible with older > versions? > > > > Each Oslo library has its own version. Only one version of each > > library is installed at a time. We use the global requirements > list > > to sync compatible requirements specifications across all > OpenStack > > projects to make them co-installable. And we try hard to maintain > > API compatibility, using SemVer versioning to indicate when that > > was not possible. > > > > If you want to have a single puppet module install all of the Oslo > > libraries, you could pull the right versions from the > upper-constraints.txt > > file in the openstack/requirements repository. That file lists the > > versions that were actually tested in the gate. > > Thanks for this feedback Doug! > So I propose we create the module in openstack namespace, please > vote for: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/270872/ > > I talked with xingchao on IRC #puppet-openstack and he's doing > project-config patch today. > Maybe could we start with Nova, Neutron, Cinder, Glance, > Keystone, see > how it works and iterate later with other modules. > > Thoughts are welcome, > -- > Emilien Macchi > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: > [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > <http://[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > -- > Xingchao Yu > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: > [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > <http://[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Emilien Macchi
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
