Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

[Suresh Anaparti]

+1 , on this new repo under Apache. Hope the community takes it forward, with 
further improvements and maintenance of this provider.

Regards,
Suresh

On 15/04/21, 2:35 PM, "Rohit Yadav"  wrote:

Hi All,

Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a 
vote to gather consensus on the following actions:

  1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on 
Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform 
cloudstack provider repository: 
https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing 
from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
  2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
repository
  3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, 
and releases of the provider
  4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after 
Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members 
with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've 
any)

The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
"(binding)" with their vote?

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers


Regards.

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue





suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
  
 

[GitHub] [cloudstack-kubernetes-provider] davidjumani commented on issue #16: [DISCUSS] Work on next release

[GitBox]

davidjumani commented on issue #16:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-822971821


   +1 for this release. It'll be good to get an official release out to get 
wider feedback and then decide how to proceed


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [cloudstack-kubernetes-provider] davidjumani commented on pull request #25: use non-root container

[GitBox]

davidjumani commented on pull request #25:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/pull/25#issuecomment-822971361


   I'd prefer to use a scratch image if possible. That's the most secure imo


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [cloudstack-kubernetes-provider] rhtyd commented on issue #16: [DISCUSS] Work on next release

[GitBox]

rhtyd commented on issue #16:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/16#issuecomment-822966802


   Hi @joschi36 thanks, we've 
https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider for releases and 
builds, I can help with release effort.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [cloudstack-kubernetes-provider] rhtyd commented on pull request #25: use non-root container

[GitBox]

rhtyd commented on pull request #25:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/pull/25#issuecomment-822966237


   @onitake @davidjumani are you lgtm on it?
   @joschi36 do you have any test results? 


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [cloudstack-kubernetes-provider] rhtyd closed issue #20: Update the Kubernetes frameworks

[GitBox]

rhtyd closed issue #20:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/20


   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [cloudstack-kubernetes-provider] rhtyd merged pull request #22: Update kubernetes libraries

[GitBox]

rhtyd merged pull request #22:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/pull/22


   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [cloudstack-kubernetes-provider] rhtyd commented on pull request #24: Changing beta labels to updated ones

[GitBox]

rhtyd commented on pull request #24:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/pull/24#issuecomment-822965778


   @onitake @joschi36 are you lgtm on merging this? 


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [cloudstack-kubernetes-provider] rhtyd commented on issue #7: Continuous integration (Dockerhub, etc.) needed

[GitBox]

rhtyd commented on issue #7:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/issues/7#issuecomment-822965570


   We've the official account here now 
https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider
   But only committers/PMC members have access. 


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

[Harikrishna Patnala]

+1

I agree with Rohit on this.

Regards,
Harikrishna

From: Rohit Yadav 
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org ; 
us...@cloudstack.apache.org ; m...@renemoser.net 

Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache 
CloudStack project

Hi René,

>From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some 
>interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and 
>quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with 
>Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived 
>provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on 
>the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.

I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being maintained 
by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache CloudStack 
community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS contributors to work 
on it. There is nothing wrong with other providers/plugins being brought in by 
contributors if there is interest and demand in the community. We've done this 
before already, when the Kubernetes project removed providers from their 
codebase we created a new home for it within ACS project to be maintained and 
used by the ACS community: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider

Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? 
Thanks.


Regards.


From: Rene Moser 
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 15:05
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache 
CloudStack project

-1

First, I didn't see much commitment in actively supporting and
maintaining this integration.

Second, there are many integrations, is terraform the one to pick for
using cloudstack from the view of the ASF?
A "plugin" for a software developed outside of ASF? What about puppet,
ansible, chef? The imbalance of this view results to a -1 from me.

Regards
René

On 15.04.21 11:05, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a 
> vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
>1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on 
> Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former 
> terraform cloudstack provider repository: 
> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: 
> re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
>2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
> repository
>3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, 
> and releases of the provider
>4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache 
> CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with 
> access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
> "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue




harikrishna.patn...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SG
@shapeblue
  
 

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

[Abhishek Kumar]

+1

From: Rohit Yadav 
Sent: 15 April 2021 14:35
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org ; 
priv...@cloudstack.apache.org 
Cc: us...@cloudstack.apache.org 
Subject: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache 
CloudStack project

Hi All,

Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a vote 
to gather consensus on the following actions:

  1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on Apache 
Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former terraform 
cloudstack provider repository: 
https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: re-licensing 
from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
  2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
repository
  3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, and 
releases of the provider
  4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache 
CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with 
access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)

The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
"(binding)" with their vote?

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

[1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
[2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers


Regards.

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue




abhishek.ku...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
  
 

[GitHub] [cloudstack-documentation] blueorangutan commented on pull request #207: Updating image and docs wrt the new UI

[GitBox]

blueorangutan commented on pull request #207:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/pull/207#issuecomment-822958428


   Doc build preview: http://qa.cloudstack.cloud/docs/WIP-PROOFING/pr/207. 
(SL-JID 43)


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [cloudstack-documentation] blueorangutan commented on pull request #207: Updating image and docs wrt the new UI

[GitBox]

blueorangutan commented on pull request #207:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/pull/207#issuecomment-822957231


   @davidjumani a Jenkins job has been kicked to build the document. I'll keep 
you posted as I make progress.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [cloudstack-documentation] davidjumani commented on pull request #207: Updating image and docs wrt the new UI

[GitBox]

davidjumani commented on pull request #207:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/pull/207#issuecomment-822957028


   @blueorangutan docbuild


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

[Rohit Yadav]

Hi René,

>From the discussion thread on the terraform provider, you can see some 
>interest and commitment (https://markmail.org/message/xultlpdihdrrg4gq) and 
>quite recently Peter/Fraunhofer and I/ShapeBlue had a meeting with 
>Chris/Hashicorp to discuss and understand the handover/fork of the archived 
>provider repository that Hashicorp is unable to maintain it and we agreed on 
>the next steps; following which I started this voting thread.

I think from a project point of view when integrations are not being maintained 
by external projects, we should have a home within the Apache CloudStack 
community to keep them alive and it makes it easy for ACS contributors to work 
on it. There is nothing wrong with other providers/plugins being brought in by 
contributors if there is interest and demand in the community. We've done this 
before already, when the Kubernetes project removed providers from their 
codebase we created a new home for it within ACS project to be maintained and 
used by the ACS community: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider

Can you reconsider your vote? Or, is that a -1 binding vote (i.e. a veto)? 
Thanks.


Regards.


From: Rene Moser 
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 15:05
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache 
CloudStack project

-1

First, I didn't see much commitment in actively supporting and
maintaining this integration.

Second, there are many integrations, is terraform the one to pick for
using cloudstack from the view of the ASF?
A "plugin" for a software developed outside of ASF? What about puppet,
ansible, chef? The imbalance of this view results to a -1 from me.

Regards
René

On 15.04.21 11:05, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a 
> vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
>1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on 
> Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former 
> terraform cloudstack provider repository: 
> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: 
> re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
>2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the 
> repository
>3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance, development, 
> and releases of the provider
>4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after Apache 
> CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members with 
> access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate 
> "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue
  
 

Re: [VOTE] New life to Terraform Provider CloudStack with Apache CloudStack project

[Wei ZHOU]

+1 (binding)

-Wei

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 11:05, Rohit Yadav  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start a
> vote to gather consensus on the following actions:
>
>   1.  Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on
> Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former
> terraform cloudstack provider repository:
> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note:
> re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp)
>   2.  Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the
> repository
>   3.  Work with the community towards any further maintenance,
> development, and releases of the provider
>   4.  Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after
> Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members
> with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if
> they've any)
>
> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021.
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
> indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb
> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers
>
>
> Regards.
>
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>

[GitHub] [cloudstack-documentation] blueorangutan commented on pull request #207: Updating image and docs wrt the new UI

[GitBox]

blueorangutan commented on pull request #207:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/pull/207#issuecomment-822303506


   Doc build preview: http://qa.cloudstack.cloud/docs/WIP-PROOFING/pr/207. 
(SL-JID 42)


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [cloudstack-documentation] blueorangutan commented on pull request #207: Updating image and docs wrt the new UI

[GitBox]

blueorangutan commented on pull request #207:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/pull/207#issuecomment-822302771


   @davidjumani a Jenkins job has been kicked to build the document. I'll keep 
you posted as I make progress.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [cloudstack-documentation] davidjumani commented on pull request #207: Updating image and docs wrt the new UI

[GitBox]

davidjumani commented on pull request #207:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/pull/207#issuecomment-822302226


   @blueorangutan docbuild


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

Re: Overprovisioning consideration in metrics API response

[Daan Hoogland]

Abhishek (and others),

I don't think we should make any changes to output parameters unless 
they do explicitly not what they describe. It make sense to add 
parameters with more explicit names/description. I can not read from 
this thread if that is the consensus, so I just add my view to the 
after-party.



On 2021/04/05 07:33:41, Rohit Yadav  wrote:
> @Abhishek Kumar - let's wait at least the end of 
this week if we receive any objections, otherwise go ahead with your 
proposal to fix the allocated values as part of the API responses.> >

> >
> >
> Regards.> >
> >
> > >
> From: David Jumani > >
> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 09:08> >
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org ; 
us...@cloudstack.apache.org > >

> Subject: Re: Overprovisioning consideration in metrics API response> >
> >
> +1 on this. Allocated should consider overprovisioning!> >
> > >
> From: Rohit Yadav > >
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 3:30 PM> >
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org ; 
us...@cloudstack.apache.org > >

> Subject: Re: Overprovisioning consideration in metrics API response> >
> >
> Thanks for starting this thread Abhishek. I think all 'allocated' API 
response keys (irrespective of type such as CPU, RAM, storage/disk etc) 
across all list/metrics APIs should consider overprovisioning factor.> >

> >
> For example, if the total resource value/limit is 100 and 
overprovisioning factor is 1.5 that means CloudStack can effectively 
allocate 1.5*100=150 of that resource, which in actual or physical value 
is (allocated value / over-provisioning factor). Let me add user@ ML to 
hear if users agree with my interpretation of allocated values/metrics.> >

> >
> >
> Regards.> >
> >
> > >
> From: Abhishek Kumar > >
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 13:31> >
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >
> Subject: Overprovisioning consideration in metrics API response> >
> >
> Hi devs,> >
> >
> There have been recurring issues and changes for API responses not 
considering the over-provisioning factor while reporting metrics for 
hosts, clusters, etc.> >

> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/4778> >
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/4850> >
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/4499> >
> >
> While some of the metric parameters doesn't consider overprovisioning 
at all, some give value in the format- "memorytotalgb": "6.78 GB (x 
1.0)".​> >

> So, to address this should we consider a code/API-wide change?> >
> And while fixing it should we introduce new parameters such as - 
cputotalwithoverprovisioning, memorytotalwithoverprovisioning, etc or 
should we apply the overprovisioning factors to the existing response 
parameters?> >

> Please share your thoughts.> >
> >
> Regards,> >
> Abhishek> >
> >
> abhishek.ku...@shapeblue.com> >
> www.shapeblue.com> >
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK> >
> @shapeblue> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> >
> www.shapeblue.com> >
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK> >
> @shapeblue> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> david.jum...@shapeblue.com> >
> www.shapeblue.com> >
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK> >
> @shapeblue> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > >
> www.shapeblue.com> >
> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK> >
> @shapeblue> >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

daan.hoogl...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
3 London Bridge Street,  3rd floor, News Building, London  SE1 9SGUK
@shapeblue