Ok. :) Thanks, Kevin ________________________________________ From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:05 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off
On 07/27/2016 05:51 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > Its a standard way of launching a given openstack service container with > specified config regardless if its backed with a redhat or ubuntu or source > based package set that the Operator can rely on having a standardized > interface to. distro packages don't grantee that kind of thing and don't want > to. > > To me, its an abstraction api kind of like nova is to kvm vs xen. the nova > user shouldn't have to care which backend is chosen. I can tell this conversation isn't going anywhere and we're not going to agree, so let's just agree to disagree. Best, -jay > ________________________________________ > From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 2:12 PM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is > getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off > > On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov> wrote: >> >>> Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing thing. >> >> Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no? >> >>> I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in production, >>> and rely on that api being consistent. >>> >>> I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds like >>> a consumable api to me. >> >> I don’t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an interface >> for we should avoid duplication. > > Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being > *programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions. > > What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an > Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in > the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to. > > It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories > and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components. > > I see no reason for the OpenStack community to standardize on those > things, frankly. It's like asking RedHat and Canonical to agree to "just > use RPM" as their package specification format. I wonder how that > conversation would go. > > Best, > -jay > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev