Hi all, I explicitly cc'd a few folks I thought might be interested for visibility, sorry for spam if you're not. This email is about getting manila landed into tripleo asap, and the current obstacles to that (at least those visible to me):
The current review [1] isn't going to land as is, regardless of the outcome/discussion of any of the following points because all the services are going to "composable controller services". How do people feel about me merging my review at [2] into its parent review (which is the current manilla review at [1]). My review just takes what is in [1] (caveats below) and makes it 'composable', and includes a dependency on [3] which is the puppet-tripleo side for the 'composable manila'. ---> Proposal merge the 'composable manila' tripleo-heat-templates review @ [2] into the parent review @ [1]. The review at [2] will be abandoned. We will continue to try and land [1] in its new 'composable manila' form. WRT the 'caveats' mentioned above and why I haven't just just ported what is in the current manila review @ [1] into the composable one @ [2]... there are two main things I've changed, both of which on guidance/discussion on the reviews. The first is addition of manila-data (wasn't in the original/current review at [1]). The second a change to the pacemaker constraints, which I've corrected to make manila-data and manila-share pacemaker a/p but everything else systemd managed, based on ongoing discussion at [3]. So IMO to move forward I need clarity on both those points. For manila-data my concerns are is it already available where we need it. I looked at puppet-manila [4] and couldn't quickly find much (any) mention of manila-data. We need it there if we are to configure anything for it via puppet. The other unkown/concern here is does manila-data get delivered with the manila package (I recall manila-share possibly, at least one of them, had a stand-alone package) otherwise we'll need to add it to the image. But mainly my question here is, can we live without it? I mean can we deploy sans manila-data or does it just not make sense (sorry for silly question). The motivation is if we can let's land and iterate to add it. Q. Can we live w/out manila-data so we can land and iterate (esp. if we need to land things into puppet-manila or anywhere else it is yet to be landed) For the pacemaker constraints I'm mainly just waiting for confirmation of our current understanding.. manila-share and manila-data are a/p pacemaker managed, everything else systemd. thanks for any info, I will follow up and update the reviews accordingly based on any comments, marios [1] "Enable Manila integration" https://review.openstack.org/#/c/188137/ [2] "Composable manila tripleo-heat-templates side" https://review.openstack.org/#/c/315658/ [3] "Adds the puppet-tripleo manifests for manila" https://review.openstack.org/#/c/313527/ [4] "openstack/puppet-manila" https://github.com/openstack/puppet-manila __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
