Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
+1 for OpenStack Essex LTS + Ubuntu 12.04 LTS On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Ghe Rivero g...@debian.org wrote: I'm ok with everything so far, but from http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch: *The stable branch will only be maintained until the next release is out. This period may be extended if there are volunteers to maintain it beyond this point.* With a 6 months release cycles, it still looks a sort period of time for a production deployment, and some people/companies can not relay on those volunteers to appear to maintain it for more time. Is there any plan (or can be proposed) to have some kind of LTS release? I've read some place that essex + Ubuntu 12.04 LTS can be a good candidate; essex is considered the first production ready release, but it will not have quantum, we are tying openstack within an specific distribution... Anyway, (ubuntu12.04 + essex)^LTS looks great, and we have time to discuss what to do for a future LTS release. Ghe Rivero On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Duncan McGreggor dun...@dreamhost.com wrote: On 07 Dec 2011 - 08:15, Mark McLoughlin wrote: On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 14:12 -0800, Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 13:52, Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 21:14, Thierry Carrez wrote: Tim Bell wrote: I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch. The people such as EPEL for RedHat systems need to have something with the appropriate bug fixes back ported. There are an increasing number of sites looking to deploy in production and cannot follow the latest development version. Agreed on the need, we discussed this at length during the design summit. The stable branches have been established and are maintained by the OpenStack Stable Branch Maintainers team. Currently this team is mostly made of distribution members (Ubuntu and Fedora/RedHat, mostly) collaborating on a single branch to avoid duplication of effort. See: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-stable-maint http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch Okay, I think this mostly addresses item #4 that I wanted to add to your summary, Thierry. I do have the following minor concerns, though: * that wiki page's summary (intro sentence) only specifically mentions Diablo; I'd like to see something along the lines of currently focusing on Diablo. If these processes evolve into a successful model, they will be applied to all future releases. Added. * the discussion on the page treats this as an experiment (this is good!), but I'd like to see a phrase alone the lines of if this experiment is successful, we will do X to ensure these processes become an official part of the workflow. Cleaned up the this is an experiment text a bit, it's gone beyond an experiment now I think. Very cool, Mark! Thanks so much!! d ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- .''`. Pienso, Luego Incordio : :' : `. `' `-www.debian.org GPG Key: 26F020F7 GPG fingerprint: 4986 39DA D152 050B 4699 9A71 66DB 5A36 26F0 20F7 ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On 07 Dec 2011 - 08:15, Mark McLoughlin wrote: On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 14:12 -0800, Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 13:52, Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 21:14, Thierry Carrez wrote: Tim Bell wrote: I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch. The people such as EPEL for RedHat systems need to have something with the appropriate bug fixes back ported. There are an increasing number of sites looking to deploy in production and cannot follow the latest development version. Agreed on the need, we discussed this at length during the design summit. The stable branches have been established and are maintained by the OpenStack Stable Branch Maintainers team. Currently this team is mostly made of distribution members (Ubuntu and Fedora/RedHat, mostly) collaborating on a single branch to avoid duplication of effort. See: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-stable-maint http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch Okay, I think this mostly addresses item #4 that I wanted to add to your summary, Thierry. I do have the following minor concerns, though: * that wiki page's summary (intro sentence) only specifically mentions Diablo; I'd like to see something along the lines of currently focusing on Diablo. If these processes evolve into a successful model, they will be applied to all future releases. Added. * the discussion on the page treats this as an experiment (this is good!), but I'd like to see a phrase alone the lines of if this experiment is successful, we will do X to ensure these processes become an official part of the workflow. Cleaned up the this is an experiment text a bit, it's gone beyond an experiment now I think. Very cool, Mark! Thanks so much!! d ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
I'm ok with everything so far, but from http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch: *The stable branch will only be maintained until the next release is out. This period may be extended if there are volunteers to maintain it beyond this point.* With a 6 months release cycles, it still looks a sort period of time for a production deployment, and some people/companies can not relay on those volunteers to appear to maintain it for more time. Is there any plan (or can be proposed) to have some kind of LTS release? I've read some place that essex + Ubuntu 12.04 LTS can be a good candidate; essex is considered the first production ready release, but it will not have quantum, we are tying openstack within an specific distribution... Anyway, (ubuntu12.04 + essex)^LTS looks great, and we have time to discuss what to do for a future LTS release. Ghe Rivero On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Duncan McGreggor dun...@dreamhost.com wrote: On 07 Dec 2011 - 08:15, Mark McLoughlin wrote: On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 14:12 -0800, Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 13:52, Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 21:14, Thierry Carrez wrote: Tim Bell wrote: I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch. The people such as EPEL for RedHat systems need to have something with the appropriate bug fixes back ported. There are an increasing number of sites looking to deploy in production and cannot follow the latest development version. Agreed on the need, we discussed this at length during the design summit. The stable branches have been established and are maintained by the OpenStack Stable Branch Maintainers team. Currently this team is mostly made of distribution members (Ubuntu and Fedora/RedHat, mostly) collaborating on a single branch to avoid duplication of effort. See: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-stable-maint http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch Okay, I think this mostly addresses item #4 that I wanted to add to your summary, Thierry. I do have the following minor concerns, though: * that wiki page's summary (intro sentence) only specifically mentions Diablo; I'd like to see something along the lines of currently focusing on Diablo. If these processes evolve into a successful model, they will be applied to all future releases. Added. * the discussion on the page treats this as an experiment (this is good!), but I'd like to see a phrase alone the lines of if this experiment is successful, we will do X to ensure these processes become an official part of the workflow. Cleaned up the this is an experiment text a bit, it's gone beyond an experiment now I think. Very cool, Mark! Thanks so much!! d ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- .''`. Pienso, Luego Incordio : :' : `. `' `-www.debian.org GPG Key: 26F020F7 GPG fingerprint: 4986 39DA D152 050B 4699 9A71 66DB 5A36 26F0 20F7 ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 14:12 -0800, Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 13:52, Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 21:14, Thierry Carrez wrote: Tim Bell wrote: I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch. The people such as EPEL for RedHat systems need to have something with the appropriate bug fixes back ported. There are an increasing number of sites looking to deploy in production and cannot follow the latest development version. Agreed on the need, we discussed this at length during the design summit. The stable branches have been established and are maintained by the OpenStack Stable Branch Maintainers team. Currently this team is mostly made of distribution members (Ubuntu and Fedora/RedHat, mostly) collaborating on a single branch to avoid duplication of effort. See: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-stable-maint http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch Okay, I think this mostly addresses item #4 that I wanted to add to your summary, Thierry. I do have the following minor concerns, though: * that wiki page's summary (intro sentence) only specifically mentions Diablo; I'd like to see something along the lines of currently focusing on Diablo. If these processes evolve into a successful model, they will be applied to all future releases. Added. * the discussion on the page treats this as an experiment (this is good!), but I'd like to see a phrase alone the lines of if this experiment is successful, we will do X to ensure these processes become an official part of the workflow. Cleaned up the this is an experiment text a bit, it's gone beyond an experiment now I think. These are tiny things, but I think they will better set expectations and give more warm fuzzies to organizations thinking about deploying OpenStack in production environments, seeing that we're considering the long-term (given success of the experiment). In addition, I would like to emphasize Tim's point from earlier, though: it's not just packaging... Note that the stable-maint team has no involvement with upstream packaging, if that's what you're talking about. Cheers, Mark. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 10:11 -0800, Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be: (0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be removed now. In the future, we should not provide such PPAs: 0-day packages for the release should be available from the last milestone PPA anyway. (1) OpenStack, as an upstream project, should focus on development rather than on providing a production-ready distribution. (2) We could provide daily builds from the stable/diablo branch for a variety of releases (much like what we do for the master branch), but those should be clearly marked not for production use and be best-effort only (like our master branch builds). (3) This should not prevent a group in the community from working on a project providing an openstack on Lucid production-ready distribution if they so wishes. This project would just be another distribution of OpenStack. This doesn't seem like enough to me. OpenStack isn't just a library; it's a fairly substantial collection of software and services, intended to be used as a product. If it can't be used as a product, what's the use? Someone made the suggestion that a new OpenStack group be started, one whose focus is on producing a production-ready, distribution-ready, release of the software. So can we add one more (need some help with wording, here...): This paragraph makes it sound like you think OpenStack upstream should produce production-ready binary packages? This is what we've agreed not to do, at least until some group of volunteers show that they can sustain the work involved. (4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs that affect performance and stability of OpenStack, or prevent an operating system from running OpenStack. This sounds like you want want OpenStack to focus more on the quality of its releases. This is generally accepted and you can join the QA team to help out: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-qa-team It also sounds like you want more co-ordination upstream between downstream distributions of OpenStack. I think there's already pretty good co-ordination. Is there any specific problem you've seen on that front? Cheers, Mark. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On 06 Dec 2011 - 13:52, Duncan McGreggor wrote: Yikes! I forgot an incredibly important one: * What is the migration path story (diablo to essex, essex to f, etc.)? I think it was going to be the Upgrades Team? ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 23:56 +0100, Loic Dachary wrote: I think there is an opportunity to leverage the momentum that is growing in each distribution by creating an openstack team for them to meet. Maybe Stefano Maffulli has an idea about how to go in this direction. The IRC channel was a great idea and it could become more. It seems that there is general consensus that OpenStack should be the good upstream provider and ease the job of downstream distributions. There is an informal team that is coordinating the packaging effort. Would it help if this team became more formal? What would it mean for the openstack-packaging team to be 'formally' recognized? /stef ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On 07 Dec 2011 - 08:22, Mark McLoughlin wrote: On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 10:11 -0800, Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be: (0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be removed now. In the future, we should not provide such PPAs: 0-day packages for the release should be available from the last milestone PPA anyway. (1) OpenStack, as an upstream project, should focus on development rather than on providing a production-ready distribution. (2) We could provide daily builds from the stable/diablo branch for a variety of releases (much like what we do for the master branch), but those should be clearly marked not for production use and be best-effort only (like our master branch builds). (3) This should not prevent a group in the community from working on a project providing an openstack on Lucid production-ready distribution if they so wishes. This project would just be another distribution of OpenStack. This doesn't seem like enough to me. OpenStack isn't just a library; it's a fairly substantial collection of software and services, intended to be used as a product. If it can't be used as a product, what's the use? Someone made the suggestion that a new OpenStack group be started, one whose focus is on producing a production-ready, distribution-ready, release of the software. So can we add one more (need some help with wording, here...): This paragraph makes it sound like you think OpenStack upstream should produce production-ready binary packages? Nope, just production-ready code. Doing the many things necessary so that: 1) when someone wants to build a binary package, they have everything that they need to do so; 2) when the OpenStack components are installed from these packages, they run well; 3) when someone wants to read the documentation for that release, it's available, up-to-date, and accurate; 4) when the unit tests are run for a given release, they all pass on a properly configured system (which is documented, supporting #3 above); 5) when the next release is out, upgrading is a clear and straight-forward process. The idea is not that these are *all* missing; rather, it appears to me (and others on this list) that the activities outlined above are not well-coordinated and/or prioritized. (4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs that affect performance and stability of OpenStack, or prevent an operating system from running OpenStack. This sounds like you want want OpenStack to focus more on the quality of its releases. Agreed, but it's not just about QA -- there is a lot involved here. With lots of different teams. My thought is that if there was an actual point of contact (person or team) that was responsible for coordinating on the specific set of areas that were agreed to have the most impact on creating a production-ready product, operators/users, vendors, etc., would have much more confidence in OpenStack as a dependable platform that business-critical systems could put their trust in. It also sounds like you want more co-ordination upstream between downstream distributions of OpenStack. I think there's already pretty good co-ordination. Is there any specific problem you've seen on that front? I think that if we had something in place like the 5 numbered points above (and other points that have been mentioned in this thread), such that an operator could quickly and easily get from 0 to production-ready in a few short steps, OpenStack would be truly unstoppable. And an obvious choice for both those with no budget and those with big budgets. d ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On 12/07/2011 10:32 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 23:56 +0100, Loic Dachary wrote: I think there is an opportunity to leverage the momentum that is growing in each distribution by creating an openstack team for them to meet. Maybe Stefano Maffulli has an idea about how to go in this direction. The IRC channel was a great idea and it could become more. It seems that there is general consensus that OpenStack should be the good upstream provider and ease the job of downstream distributions. There is an informal team that is coordinating the packaging effort. Would it help if this team became more formal? What would it mean for the openstack-packaging team to be 'formally' recognized? Thierry Carrez and Mark McLoughlin essentially asked the same question on IRC a few hours ago. You are on the same line ;-) I honestly don't know how to express myself more clearly than I did in my previous mails. The Debian GNU/Linux packaging team is doing fine. Since you are all comfortable with the fact that it operates independently, there probably is no need to create tighter relationships. If you ever feel that this needs to be discussed again, let me know. Cheers attachment: loic.vcf signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be: (0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be removed now. In the future, we should not provide such PPAs: 0-day packages for the release should be available from the last milestone PPA anyway. (1) OpenStack, as an upstream project, should focus on development rather than on providing a production-ready distribution. (2) We could provide daily builds from the stable/diablo branch for a variety of releases (much like what we do for the master branch), but those should be clearly marked not for production use and be best-effort only (like our master branch builds). (3) This should not prevent a group in the community from working on a project providing an openstack on Lucid production-ready distribution if they so wishes. This project would just be another distribution of OpenStack. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
Thierry, I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch. The people such as EPEL for RedHat systems need to have something with the appropriate bug fixes back ported. There are an increasing number of sites looking to deploy in production and cannot follow the latest development version. Tim ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On 06 Dec 2011 - 10:11, Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be: (0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be removed now. In the future, we should not provide such PPAs: 0-day packages for the release should be available from the last milestone PPA anyway. (1) OpenStack, as an upstream project, should focus on development rather than on providing a production-ready distribution. (2) We could provide daily builds from the stable/diablo branch for a variety of releases (much like what we do for the master branch), but those should be clearly marked not for production use and be best-effort only (like our master branch builds). (3) This should not prevent a group in the community from working on a project providing an openstack on Lucid production-ready distribution if they so wishes. This project would just be another distribution of OpenStack. This doesn't seem like enough to me. OpenStack isn't just a library; it's a fairly substantial collection of software and services, intended to be used as a product. If it can't be used as a product, what's the use? Someone It was Loic Dachary. He said: However, as it evolves towards a system widely used in production, it will face new challenges and the communities working on packaging for each distribution will provide valuable input to developers. Creating a packaging team with representatives for each distribution and electing someone to represent them in the Policy Board could achieve this. d made the suggestion that a new OpenStack group be started, one whose focus is on producing a production-ready, distribution-ready, release of the software. So can we add one more (need some help with wording, here...): (4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs that affect performance and stability of OpenStack, or prevent an operating system from running OpenStack. Thoughts? d ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:11:28 -0800 Duncan McGreggor dun...@dreamhost.com wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be: (0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be removed now. In the future, we should not provide such PPAs: 0-day packages for the release should be available from the last milestone PPA anyway. (1) OpenStack, as an upstream project, should focus on development rather than on providing a production-ready distribution. (2) We could provide daily builds from the stable/diablo branch for a variety of releases (much like what we do for the master branch), but those should be clearly marked not for production use and be best-effort only (like our master branch builds). (3) This should not prevent a group in the community from working on a project providing an openstack on Lucid production-ready distribution if they so wishes. This project would just be another distribution of OpenStack. This doesn't seem like enough to me. OpenStack isn't just a library; it's a fairly substantial collection of software and services, intended to be used as a product. If it can't be used as a product, what's the use? Someone made the suggestion that a new OpenStack group be started, one whose focus is on producing a production-ready, distribution-ready, release of the software. So can we add one more (need some help with wording, here...): (4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs that affect performance and stability of OpenStack, or prevent an operating system from running OpenStack. Thoughts? d Hi We already have an little informal channel on freenode called #openstack-packaging. Regards chuck ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Duncan McGreggor dun...@dreamhost.com wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be: (0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be removed now. In the future, we should not provide such PPAs: 0-day packages for the release should be available from the last milestone PPA anyway. (1) OpenStack, as an upstream project, should focus on development rather than on providing a production-ready distribution. (2) We could provide daily builds from the stable/diablo branch for a variety of releases (much like what we do for the master branch), but those should be clearly marked not for production use and be best-effort only (like our master branch builds). (3) This should not prevent a group in the community from working on a project providing an openstack on Lucid production-ready distribution if they so wishes. This project would just be another distribution of OpenStack. This doesn't seem like enough to me. OpenStack isn't just a library; it's a fairly substantial collection of software and services, intended to be used as a product. If it can't be used as a product, what's the use? Someone made the suggestion that a new OpenStack group be started, one whose focus is on producing a production-ready, distribution-ready, release of the software. So can we add one more (need some help with wording, here...): (4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs that affect performance and stability of OpenStack, or prevent an operating system from running OpenStack. Thoughts? +1 on this idea - I think it has a lot of benefits in coordinating distro activity. mike ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
Tim Bell wrote: I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch. The people such as EPEL for RedHat systems need to have something with the appropriate bug fixes back ported. There are an increasing number of sites looking to deploy in production and cannot follow the latest development version. Agreed on the need, we discussed this at length during the design summit. The stable branches have been established and are maintained by the OpenStack Stable Branch Maintainers team. Currently this team is mostly made of distribution members (Ubuntu and Fedora/RedHat, mostly) collaborating on a single branch to avoid duplication of effort. See: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-stable-maint http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch Regards, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
(4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs that affect performance and stability of OpenStack, or prevent an operating system from running OpenStack. +1 Every system/distro has its own way to work, but most of them share a common way to do things. I think (as a Debian openstack package team member) that this group can help a lot to improve the deploy of Openstack, focusing just only in packaging/distributing stuff, and not development. It must be a win-win for every ditro and for OpenStack itself. Ghe Rivero -- .''`. Pienso, Luego Incordio : :' : `. `' `-www.debian.orgwww.hispalinux.es GPG Key: 26F020F7 GPG fingerprint: 4986 39DA D152 050B 4699 9A71 66DB 5A36 26F0 20F7 ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be: (0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be removed now. In the future, we should not provide such PPAs: 0-day packages for the release should be available from the last milestone PPA anyway. (1) OpenStack, as an upstream project, should focus on development rather than on providing a production-ready distribution. (2) We could provide daily builds from the stable/diablo branch for a variety of releases (much like what we do for the master branch), but those should be clearly marked not for production use and be best-effort only (like our master branch builds). (3) This should not prevent a group in the community from working on a project providing an openstack on Lucid production-ready distribution if they so wishes. This project would just be another distribution of OpenStack. This doesn't seem like enough to me. OpenStack isn't just a library; it's a fairly substantial collection of software and services, intended to be used as a product. If it can't be used as a product, what's the use? Someone made the suggestion that a new OpenStack group be started, one whose focus is on producing a production-ready, distribution-ready, release of the software. So can we add one more (need some help with wording, here...): (4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs that affect performance and stability of OpenStack, or prevent an operating system from running OpenStack. I don't think you need a project (openstack projects are about upstream software): you need a *team* to coordinate distribution efforts and make sure openstack projects are packageable etc. Like zul said, that team actually already informally exists and has an IRC channel :) -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
We need more than 'just' packaging it is using the testing, documentation and above all care to produce *and* maintain a stable release that production sites can rely on for 6-12 months and know that others are relying on it too. Who is going to make the judgement that a bug fix to the latest Essex development branch is a valid patch for a backport to stable/diablo and does not break production sites ? Diablo 2011.3 brought much functionality but also some useful points to consider for the future as to how we organise the project. Tim (4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs that affect performance and stability of OpenStack, or prevent an operating system from running OpenStack. Thoughts? d Hi We already have an little informal channel on freenode called #openstack-packaging. Regards chuck ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On 06 Dec 2011 - 13:52, Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 21:14, Thierry Carrez wrote: Tim Bell wrote: I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch. The people such as EPEL for RedHat systems need to have something with the appropriate bug fixes back ported. There are an increasing number of sites looking to deploy in production and cannot follow the latest development version. Agreed on the need, we discussed this at length during the design summit. The stable branches have been established and are maintained by the OpenStack Stable Branch Maintainers team. Currently this team is mostly made of distribution members (Ubuntu and Fedora/RedHat, mostly) collaborating on a single branch to avoid duplication of effort. See: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-stable-maint http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch Okay, I think this mostly addresses item #4 that I wanted to add to your summary, Thierry. I do have the following minor concerns, though: * that wiki page's summary (intro sentence) only specifically mentions Diablo; I'd like to see something along the lines of currently focusing on Diablo. If these processes evolve into a successful model, they will be applied to all future releases. * the discussion on the page treats this as an experiment (this is good!), but I'd like to see a phrase alone the lines of if this experiment is successful, we will do X to ensure these processes become an official part of the workflow. These are tiny things, but I think they will better set expectations and give more warm fuzzies to organizations thinking about deploying OpenStack in production environments, seeing that we're considering the long-term (given success of the experiment). In addition, I would like to emphasize Tim's point from earlier, though: it's not just packaging... he said it very well, so I'll quote: Tim Bell wrote: We need more than 'just' packaging it is using the testing, documentation and above all care to produce *and* maintain a stable release that production sites can rely on for 6-12 months and know that others are relying on it too. I would like to see verbage reflecting Tim's concerns added to the wiki page as well. * What is the QA/testing story? * What is the documentation story? * What is the support cycle story? Yikes! I forgot an incredibly important one: * What is the migration path story (diablo to essex, essex to f, etc.)? d Ghe Rivero, Michael Pittaro, Tim Bell: does the stable maintenance team address your concerns? d ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
The purpose of the stable branch and the maint team that theirry mentioned earlier is to vet patches. Are you suggesting that we need a point release system for openstack outside of relying on distros to pick release points? Vish On Dec 6, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Tim Bell wrote: We need more than 'just' packaging it is using the testing, documentation and above all care to produce *and* maintain a stable release that production sites can rely on for 6-12 months and know that others are relying on it too. Who is going to make the judgement that a bug fix to the latest Essex development branch is a valid patch for a backport to stable/diablo and does not break production sites ? Diablo 2011.3 brought much functionality but also some useful points to consider for the future as to how we organise the project. Tim (4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs that affect performance and stability of OpenStack, or prevent an operating system from running OpenStack. Thoughts? d Hi We already have an little informal channel on freenode called #openstack-packaging. Regards chuck ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
Packaging is just a minor step and the last one. But also an important one. Without propering packaging, installation and updates can be a real pain. We should give packaging a lot of love, but there is people much more prepared to do it, and with a little of help, can do a great job. When one installs an stable release in a production environment, expects it to have some minor updates and bug fixed for a not so small period of time (6 months looks to short for me). Having new releases every 6 months can be really painful in terms on maintain every release bug free for its lifetime. (Having a lifetime of 1 year, implies to maintain 3 releases while working on a new one, very time consuming). Maybe not every release should be consider equal in terms of prodution release. Ghe Rivero On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Tim Bell tim.b...@cern.ch wrote: We need more than 'just' packaging it is using the testing, documentation and above all care to produce *and* maintain a stable release that production sites can rely on for 6-12 months and know that others are relying on it too. Who is going to make the judgement that a bug fix to the latest Essex development branch is a valid patch for a backport to stable/diablo and does not break production sites ? Diablo 2011.3 brought much functionality but also some useful points to consider for the future as to how we organise the project. Tim (4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs that affect performance and stability of OpenStack, or prevent an operating system from running OpenStack. Thoughts? d Hi We already have an little informal channel on freenode called #openstack-packaging. Regards chuck ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- .''`. Pienso, Luego Incordio : :' : `. `' `-www.debian.orgwww.hispalinux.es GPG Key: 26F020F7 GPG fingerprint: 4986 39DA D152 050B 4699 9A71 66DB 5A36 26F0 20F7 ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On 06 Dec 2011 - 23:56, Loic Dachary wrote: On 12/06/2011 09:24 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Duncan McGreggor wrote: On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote: So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be: (0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be removed now. In the future, we should not provide such PPAs: 0-day packages for the release should be available from the last milestone PPA anyway. (1) OpenStack, as an upstream project, should focus on development rather than on providing a production-ready distribution. (2) We could provide daily builds from the stable/diablo branch for a variety of releases (much like what we do for the master branch), but those should be clearly marked not for production use and be best-effort only (like our master branch builds). (3) This should not prevent a group in the community from working on a project providing an openstack on Lucid production-ready distribution if they so wishes. This project would just be another distribution of OpenStack. This doesn't seem like enough to me. OpenStack isn't just a library; it's a fairly substantial collection of software and services, intended to be used as a product. If it can't be used as a product, what's the use? Someone made the suggestion that a new OpenStack group be started, one whose focus is on producing a production-ready, distribution-ready, release of the software. So can we add one more (need some help with wording, here...): (4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs that affect performance and stability of OpenStack, or prevent an operating system from running OpenStack. I don't think you need a project (openstack projects are about upstream software): you need a *team* to coordinate distribution efforts and make sure openstack projects are packageable etc. Like zul said, that team actually already informally exists and has an IRC channel :) Packaging is a tremendous amount of work, I'm sure you agree on this otherwise this thread would not exist ;-) It is not upstream code development indeed. However the people working to package openstack provide valuable input to developers and patches that are not only essential to packaging but also to the useability of the components. Creating a packaging team that acknowledge their contribution to the upstream project will show that the packagers contributions are an integral part of the openstack development, it would motivate new packagers to contribute their changes upstream instead of keeping them in a patch directory within the package. I think there is an opportunity to leverage the momentum that is growing in each distribution by creating an openstack team for them to meet. Maybe Stefano Maffulli has an idea about how to go in this direction. The IRC channel was a great idea and it could become more. Good packages make a huge difference when it comes to deploying a solution made of numerous components. A packaging team that spans all openstack components would reduce the workload as intended while keeping the subject on the agenda. Cheers Wow. I'm so +1 on this. Very well said; sums up my feelings on the matter too. Maybe this could be made an agenda item for the next PPB meeting? d begin:vcard fn:Loic Dachary n:Dachary;Loic org:Artisan Logiciel Libre adr:;;12 bd Magenta;Paris;;75010;France email;internet:l...@dachary.org title:Senior Developer tel;work:+33 4 84 25 08 05 tel;home:+33 9 51 18 43 38 tel;cell:+33 6 64 03 29 07 note:Born 131414404 before EPOCH. url:http://dachary.org/ version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
The stable team with Duncan's additions would fully address my concerns. Tim ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
Hi everyone, Yesterday, Vish and Monty raised the need for the OpenStack project to provide a maintained set of packages for stable versions of OpenStack on yet-unsupported versions of distributions. TL;DR summary: The resources needed to do that properly are bigger than you think (and doing that will alienate some distro packaging resources), so we'll either do a terrible job at it, or lose focus on the development release. If there is a need, it should be done as an alternate distribution, not inside the OpenStack project. Long version: First let me agree on the need. A very good, very stable distribution of OpenStack on stable versions of distributions (a.k.a. stable/diablo on Lucid) is definitely needed. The 2011.3 release PPA does not provide that and bears false expectations, so it should die a painful death, and quickly. That doesn't mean we, as an upstream project, should necessarily enter the distribution business to cure the deficiencies of their model. I think distributions are separate projects with a separate skillset -- if we try to do it we'll dilute our effort *and* alienate the existing distributions. Those should compete between them, not with us. Providing a production-ready, maintained distribution channel is more than just building packages for Lucid, unfortunately. That is good for test packages (like our trunk PPA). A production channel needs to be always installable and upgradeable (unlike our trunk PPAs that are routinely broken). Any backport in there needs to be watched for security updates. You commit to maintain it for a given length in time. Our resources are limited and the skillset is particular. Last month Monty was arguing we should not provide packages as project deliverables at all, for the precise reason that we could not gate on packaging with only a few people with that skill (he apparently changed his mind ?). Resources are limited, so where do we stop ? Where does user convenience end ? What distributions and series should we support ? What versions of OpenStack ? How long do we support them ? Do we support Diablo on OpenSUSE 10.1 for 5 years ? For every combination added, the resources are spread even thinner. We used to limit the scope of the OpenStack project to producing code, and letting downstream distributions do what they do best, i.e. integrating and distributing. We only provided test/evaluation PPAs for user convenience, since the cost/benefit ratio was reasonable. Everyone was at his place, happy and collaborating on packaging. If we do production PPAs, we create competition and conflicts. Monty says I do not care about conflicts with distros -- but that's a sure way of losing distro packagers help. For example, the current packaging team working on Ubuntu packages is about 6 people, 4 of which happen to work for the distro. My point is that if there is such a need for OpenStack on Lucid, then a new distribution (99% based on Lucid) will address that. It does not have to be OpenStack itself. My fear is that we would do a very bad job at this, and it would reflect on the project as a whole. Branding ours official won't make it better than unofficial ones, but will alienate distros. I prefer this to be done separately: that ensures that OpenStack remains focused on code and keeps collaborating with every distro on an equal footing. And if you're so interested by this, you could be in both projects. A last remark: we are already doing this. And we are not being successful with it. Swift last release PPA [1] provides a decent production channel, updated roughly every month, for running stable Swift on stable Ubuntu. If it was a wild success and everyone was collaborating on packaging work for it... it could prove me wrong. But for some reason, nobody (including Rackspace) is using that. They are using their own packaging and their own repositories. Why ? And what makes you think that generalizing that idea to every project would suddenly make it work ? [1] https://launchpad.net/~swift-core/+archive/release -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On Wed, Nov 30 2011, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi Thierry, TL;DR summary: The resources needed to do that properly are bigger than you think (and doing that will alienate some distro packaging resources), so we'll either do a terrible job at it, or lose focus on the development release. If there is a need, it should be done as an alternate distribution, not inside the OpenStack project. With my Debian developer and Debian OpenStack packaging team hat on, I must say that you're totally right about this. All upstreams projects trying to do packaging does a terrible job at it, because that's not something you can improvise. It's more important to understand the needs of the packagers (e.g. a proper setup.py) than to try to do their jobs worse. -- Julien Danjou // eNovance http://enovance.com // ✉ julien.dan...@enovance.com ☎ +33 1 49 70 99 81 ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 10:32 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: TL;DR summary: The resources needed to do that properly are bigger than you think (and doing that will alienate some distro packaging resources), so we'll either do a terrible job at it, or lose focus on the development release. If there is a need, it should be done as an alternate distribution, not inside the OpenStack project. I think the conclusion is fair, especially if you consider that for the OpenStack project to convincingly do binary distributions we would also need to support a wider range distros/platforms. But if a thriving community effort around doing producing binary distributions of OpenStack for multiple platforms did happen to develop, I think it would be valid to leave open the possibility of that effort joining the project. That doesn't look terribly likely right now, though. Cheers, Mark. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
I think there are two distinct use cases here. To me, the PPA's have always been a QA tool. I wanted people willing to help test OpenStack to be able to do so with as little effort as possible. Building packages per-commit gave us that. It seems incredibly counterintuitive to me that someone who wants to help us verify the stable branches need to jump through more hoops to do so. IMO we should be as least as concerned about the quality of stable updates as anything else. This is why I think we should be offering a PPA with per-commit builds from the stable branch(es). This is completely different from a production PPA. I wouldn't dream of pointing people to the above mentioned PPA for their production environment. If someone wants to offer this outside of (but perhaps in cooperation with) OpenStack, that'd be great. I'd be delighted to see companies taking this on and offering a supported OpenStack distribution, but I don't think this is our job for pretty much all the same reasons Thierry outlines. I propose we start building packages from the stable branches and put them in an appropriately named/labeled PPA, such as nova-core/diablo-qa or nova-core/diablo-not-for-production (or perhaps under openstack-stable-maint). At the same time, I'd like to propose that we limit ourselves to fewer supported versions of Ubuntu (for trunk builds as well as these new, stable branch builds). Specifically: * Most recent LTS * Most recent release (which may or may not be an LTS) * Current development release LTS's would go out of support when the subsequent LTS's first point release is released. Non-LTS's would go out of support a month after the subsequent release is out. This means that right now, we'd build: * Lucid (until 12.04.1 is released (July 2012)) * Oneiric (until May 2012) * Precise (until (probably) July 2014) This gives people ample opportunity to upgrade to the next release and at the same time reduces the amount of releases we need to worry about significantly. I think we'd get a valuable QA tool back and we'd reduce the burden of maintaining the per-commit packages by having fewer distro versions to worry about. -- Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
Soren Hansen wrote: I propose we start building packages from the stable branches and put them in an appropriately named/labeled PPA, such as nova-core/diablo-qa or nova-core/diablo-not-for-production (or perhaps under openstack-stable-maint). [...] That would work (and inside the current project). Just two remarks: * Expectations are difficult to control. Even if we use an intimidating name, some people will still expect this to provide more than it actually does. For example, people kept thinking that the 2011.3 release PPA would be updated, while it explicitly said it wouldn't. * I don't think that's what Vish and Monty are after -- they specifically mentioned the lack of a production-ready distribution channel as the problem that we needed to solve -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:07 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote: I think there are two distinct use cases here. Totally agree. We need to make it as easy as possible for people to test upstream git branches and releases. To me, the PPA's have always been a QA tool. I wanted people willing to help test OpenStack to be able to do so with as little effort as possible. Building packages per-commit gave us that. It seems incredibly counterintuitive to me that someone who wants to help us verify the stable branches need to jump through more hoops to do so. IMO we should be as least as concerned about the quality of stable updates as anything else. This is why I think we should be offering a PPA with per-commit builds from the stable branch(es). This is completely different from a production PPA. I wouldn't dream of pointing people to the above mentioned PPA for their production environment. If someone wants to offer this outside of (but perhaps in cooperation with) OpenStack, that'd be great. I'd be delighted to see companies taking this on and offering a supported OpenStack distribution, but I don't think this is our job for pretty much all the same reasons Thierry outlines. I propose we start building packages from the stable branches and put them in an appropriately named/labeled PPA, such as nova-core/diablo-qa or nova-core/diablo-not-for-production (or perhaps under openstack-stable-maint). I'm not convinced that distribution specific packaging is the best way to go about this. I want Fedora users to be able to test out, and get involved with, upstream as easily as Ubuntu users are. Same for other distros. The thought of getting into the game of maintaining this upstream packaging for multiple distros, and e.g. having to make sure any dependencies are packaged for these distros ... ugh. I don't have anything concrete to offer as an alternative, but I'd love to see something like devstack that runs either from git or tarballs and supports multiple distributions. Or maybe the answer is for OpenStack to publish everything to pypi and something like devstack which uses a virtualenv. There's also the likes of jhbuild, GARGNOME, minuteman and surely more - perhaps we can take a leaf out of their books? But until something like this exists, I guess you're right - throwing out the per-commit PPAs is a backward step. However, I think Thierry's point was about PPAs containing packaged releases (e.g. 2011.3.1) Cheers, Mark. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
2011/11/30 Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org: Soren Hansen wrote: I propose we start building packages from the stable branches and put them in an appropriately named/labeled PPA, such as nova-core/diablo-qa or nova-core/diablo-not-for-production (or perhaps under openstack-stable-maint). [...] That would work (and inside the current project). Just two remarks: * Expectations are difficult to control. Even if we use an intimidating name, some people will still expect this to provide more than it actually does. For example, people kept thinking that the 2011.3 release PPA would be updated, while it explicitly said it wouldn't. The reason I want the PPA name to be scary looking is exactly because of the lesson learned from those PPA's. It's easy to miss the disclaimers on Launchpad (and if you happen to find the PPA info somewhere else, there might be no disclaimer at all!). The PPA name is the most obvious place to put this. Only if you're running someone else's script to enable it will you never see it. Some people will still miss it, but I think it's the best we can do. * I don't think that's what Vish and Monty are after -- they specifically mentioned the lack of a production-ready distribution channel as the problem that we needed to solve Right. I agree we shouldn't do that. Someone else should. But I don't want that to hold back the creation of the per-commit PPA for diablo/stable which I find important for QA purposes. -- Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
Hi, TL;DR summary: The resources needed to do that properly are bigger than you think (and doing that will alienate some distro packaging resources), so we'll either do a terrible job at it, or lose focus on the development release. If there is a need, it should be done as an alternate distribution, not inside the OpenStack project. As Julien Danjou wrote, we ( OpenStack Debian GNU/Linux packagers [1]) discussed your mail. We are comfortable with the idea that OpenStack focuses on development and that packaging is left to the packagers involved in each distribution. Packaging related patches from Julien Danjou were recently accepted upstream (https://review.openstack.org/#dashboard,1669). This is the kind of cooperation that makes it possible to maintain packages matching the Debian GNU/Linux quality standard. We are confident in our ability to provide stable packages in the future. OpenStack packaging is not an easy task. It currently fits nicely in Debian GNU/Linux. However, as it evolves towards a system widely used in production, it will face new challenges and the communities working on packaging for each distribution will provide valuable input to developers. Creating a packaging team with representatives for each distribution and electing someone to represent them in the Policy Board could achieve this. Cheers [1] PKG OpenStack page : https://alioth.debian.org/projects/openstack/and corresponding packages: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=openstack-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?packages=nova http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?packages=glance attachment: loic.vcf signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
2011/11/30 Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com: On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:07 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote: I propose we start building packages from the stable branches and put them in an appropriately named/labeled PPA, such as nova-core/diablo-qa or nova-core/diablo-not-for-production (or perhaps under openstack-stable-maint). I'm not convinced that distribution specific packaging is the best way to go about this. That's a valid discussion. At the moment, this is what we do for trunk commits. This is how we generally propose that people test things out. I don't see any reason why the mechanics for testing the stable branches should be different. So, a discussion about these mechanisms shouldn't be isolated to the context of the stable branch. I want Fedora users to be able to test out, and get involved with, upstream as easily as Ubuntu users are. I'd be happy for us to build Fedora packages as well, fwiw. Same for other distros. The thought of getting into the game of maintaining this upstream packaging for multiple distros, and e.g. having to make sure any dependencies are packaged for these distros ... ugh. Yes, this is a lot of work. This is one of the primary reasons we chose a reference platform to begin with: Being able to focus the efforts and actually succeed rather than trying to do everything and fail. We had (and have) people involved in the project that could actually take this on. If someone wants to do the same for Fedora (and other distros), that'd be awesome. I don't have anything concrete to offer as an alternative, but I'd love to see something like devstack that runs either from git or tarballs and supports multiple distributions. For production, we recommend people use packages. I think there's a lot of value in using the same installation mechanism for QA as for production. There's also the likes of jhbuild, GARGNOME, minuteman and surely more - perhaps we can take a leaf out of their books? I hope I'n not stepping on anyone's toes, but I consider those things to be relics from a time before things such as PPA's became prevalent. -- Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Soren Hansen so...@linux2go.dk wrote: To me, the PPA's have always been a QA tool. I wanted people willing to help test OpenStack to be able to do so with as little effort as possible. Building packages per-commit gave us that. +1 I don't have any insights on the implementation details, and agreethat it is hard to do well, but it is essential for quality. It's more than the level of effort for testing, we need to eliminatevariability, and everyone be able to point to the same thing and say,is good. But working on this today, would it introduce great variability verseswhat will be deployed to production? I hesitate to suggest this mightbe a problem for six months from now when everyone has had some timeto work out the details of their own flavors, and worked with thoseflavors with customers. Still without something how do we measure quality. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On 11/30/2011 7:59 AM, Soren Hansen wrote: I don't have anything concrete to offer as an alternative, but I'd love to see something like devstack that runs either from git or tarballs and supports multiple distributions. For production, we recommend people use packages. I think there's a lot of value in using the same installation mechanism for QA as for production. This, for us, is the main issue. We use devstack for various things but unfortunately install from source is very different from install for production, more so in python/openstack than some other technologies. When we are testing a new build to see whether a problem was fixed or a new feature is working we just want to change the pointer to the ppa. I understand that if some source change induces the need for a packaging change then an auto-created ppa will stop working. It is also true that creating packages as part of a build process may end up favoring some packaging system over another. Still, I don't think that is a reason to force users to have their own (or, cringe, manual) processes to create packages that can feed into a test-for-production environment when jenkins can just do it for a few popular systems. -David ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On 30 Nov 2011 - 13:57, Loic Dachary wrote: Hi, TL;DR summary: The resources needed to do that properly are bigger than you think (and doing that will alienate some distro packaging resources), so we'll either do a terrible job at it, or lose focus on the development release. If there is a need, it should be done as an alternate distribution, not inside the OpenStack project. As Julien Danjou wrote, we ( OpenStack Debian GNU/Linux packagers [1]) discussed your mail. We are comfortable with the idea that OpenStack focuses on development and that packaging is left to the packagers involved in each distribution. Packaging related patches from Julien Danjou were recently accepted upstream (https://review.openstack.org/#dashboard,1669). This is the kind of cooperation that makes it possible to maintain packages matching the Debian GNU/Linux quality standard. We are confident in our ability to provide stable packages in the future. OpenStack packaging is not an easy task. It currently fits nicely in Debian GNU/Linux. However, as it evolves towards a system widely used in production, it will face new challenges and the communities working on packaging for each distribution will provide valuable input to developers. Creating a packaging team with representatives for each distribution and electing someone to represent them in the Policy Board could achieve this. Very +1. d Cheers [1] PKG OpenStack page : https://alioth.debian.org/projects/openstack/and corresponding packages: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=openstack-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?packages=nova http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?packages=glance begin:vcard fn:Loic Dachary n:Dachary;Loic org:Artisan Logiciel Libre adr:;;12 bd Magenta;Paris;;75010;France email;internet:l...@dachary.org title:Senior Developer tel;work:+33 4 84 25 08 05 tel;home:+33 9 51 18 43 38 tel;cell:+33 6 64 03 29 07 note:Born 131414404 before EPOCH. url:http://dachary.org/ version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Providing packages for stable releases of OpenStack
On Nov 30, 2011, at 4:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Soren Hansen wrote: I propose we start building packages from the stable branches and put them in an appropriately named/labeled PPA, such as nova-core/diablo-qa or nova-core/diablo-not-for-production (or perhaps under openstack-stable-maint). [...] That would work (and inside the current project). Just two remarks: * Expectations are difficult to control. Even if we use an intimidating name, some people will still expect this to provide more than it actually does. For example, people kept thinking that the 2011.3 release PPA would be updated, while it explicitly said it wouldn't. * I don't think that's what Vish and Monty are after -- they specifically mentioned the lack of a production-ready distribution channel as the problem that we needed to solve I won't speak for Monty, but Soren's suggestion checks all of my boxes. The use case I'm trying to fill is user's with existing infrastructure (or even older openstack installs!) that are evaluating diablo. We can't expect these users to upgrade to Oneiric. I just want to be able to tell them a place to go that they can install on Lucid that will actually work. I don't mind making it clear that they will have to take responsibility for maintaining packages if they want to take it into production. There are so many barriers of entry to getting started with OpenStack, so I'm just trying to pull down as many of those as I can. Vish -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Release Manager, OpenStack ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
