Hi,

I apologize I wasn't here yesterday to discuss about that on IRC.
I was surprised also about not letting puppet ensuring that the service is 
running and
now I understand well the reason behind it. But I think too, that for
most of downstream users (like those of puppet-openstackci) the most obvious 
behavior
is running by default. Having a switch to disable the default and disabling it 
in
system-config seems fine.

Furthermore an explanation as a comment about why we deactivate it from
system-config is good to have.

Best regards,
Fabien

On 13/08/2015 11:07, Ricardo Carrillo Cruz wrote:
> I lean towards the second option that Jeremy pointed out.
> 
> External users just expect Puppet to bring up services configured by the 
> module, it makes sense to me having 'running' as default and override that at 
> the node or wrapper module.
> 
> Regards
> 
> El 13/8/2015 8:30, "Yolanda Robla Mota" <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> escribió:
> 
>     Hi
>     It's great that you expose that because this review passed through a lot
>     of eyes and we all +2, we all assumed that the manifest not managing
>     the zuul services was a bug.
>     From my perspective, i see advantages on puppet managing these
>     services, but I can understand that not all end users will want the
>     same.
>     Advantages I see for managing services are:
> 
>     1. Manual intervention. If you don't have any extra orchestration
>     layer on top, such as ansible, you need manual steps to spin up these
>     services. That can be a blocker for some workflows, such as
>     automated testing.
> 
>     2. Reliability. It can be better or worse option, but letting puppet
>     manage the services can be a life-saver if for some reason the
>     service goes down. For example i've had several problems with zuul-merger
>     services being down and no one noticing it until reviews started to
>     fail. Having puppet watching these cannot be the better solution but
>     it works on the simplest environments.
> 
>     So having said that, i think that the parameter option is a good one.
>     Provide a parameter to zuul, to show if we want it to manage the
>     services or not, and let end users decide.
> 
>     Best
>     Yolanda
> 
>     El 12/08/15 a las 23:15, Jeremy Stanley escribió:
> 
>         Change https://review.openstack.org/168306 for puppet-zuul came to
>         my attention earlier today when it merged. After a quick discussion
>         on IRC, Spencer proposed a revert which I approved so that we can
>         get a little more discussion going about this topic.
> 
>         First, I'm really sorry I didn't see and weigh in on it sooner (it's
>         not like I didn't have time, it was ~4.5 months old). Second, we've
>         grown lots of new core reviewers and I'm thrilled they're reviewing
>         and approving changes, and I don't want to discourage that in any
>         way, so thank you to those of you who did review that change.
> 
>         In the past, not using ensure=>running on services in our Puppet
>         modules was intentional, particularly for more stateful services,
>         especially for services which trigger other (possibly remote)
>         actions and have a potential to make a mess. It's pretty likely that
>         those of us who were around for the earlier discussions about it
>         failed to write it down anywhere obvious, leading others to assume
>         it's a bug/oversight. I see a couple of obvious solutions though
>         there are no doubt others:
> 
>         1. Document in each module where we do this, at least in the readme
>         and probably also in an inline comment around the service
>         definition, that it's that way on purpose. Optionally, make the
>         ensure conditional on a class parameter that defaults to unmanaged
>         in case some downstreams want to use Puppet like a service manager.
> 
>         2. Similar managed/unmanaged parameter, but make it default to
>         running and override the default to unmanaged in our
>         ::openstack_project classes. This means that we cease consuming our
>         modules with the same defaults as downstream users, however if it
>         turns out that our OpenStack Infra root sysadmins really do have a
>         very different preference from the majority of our downstream
>         consumers then at least we can be clear about that.
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Yolanda Robla Mota
>     Cloud Automation and Distribution Engineer
>     +34 605641639 <tel:%2B34%20605641639>
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     OpenStack-Infra mailing list
>     [email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-Infra mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
> 

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-Infra mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra

Reply via email to