Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Joshua, I was talking about simple python sub-package inside existing repository, in existing package. I am suggesting to add muranoapi.engine.name sub-package, and nothing more. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Ruslan Kamaldinov rkamaldi...@mirantis.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: Seeing that the following repos already exist, maybe there is some need for cleanup? - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-agent - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-common - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-dashboard - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-deployment - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-docs - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-metadataclient - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-repository - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-tests ...(did I miss others?) Can we maybe not have more git repositories and instead figure out a way to have 1 repository (perhaps with submodules?) ;-) It appears like murano is already exploding all over stackforge which makes it hard to understand why yet another repo is needed. I understand why from a code point of view, but it doesn't seem right from a code organization point of view to continue adding repos. It seems like murano (https://github.com/stackforge/murano) should just have 1 repo, with sub-repos (tests, docs, api, agent...) for its own organizational usage instead of X repos that expose others to murano's internal organizational details. -Josh Joshua, I agree that this huge number of repositories is confusing for newcomers. I've spent some time to understand mission of each of these repos. That's why we already did the cleanup :) [0] And I personally will do everything to prevent creation of new repo for Murano. Here is the list of repositories targeted for the next Murano release (Apr 17): * murano-api * murano-agent * python-muranoclient * murano-dashboard * murano-docs The rest of these repos will be deprecated right after the release. Also we will rename murano-api to just murano. murano-api will include all the Murano services, functionaltests for Tempest, Devstack scripts, developer docs. I guess we already can update README files in deprecated repos to avoid further confusion. I wouldn't agree that there should be just one repo. Almost every OpenStack project has it's own repo for python client. All the user docs are kept in a separate repo. Guest agent code should live in it's own repository to keep number of dependencies as low as possible. I'd say there should be required/comfortable minimum of repositories per project. And one more nit correction: OpenStack has it's own git repository [1]. We shoul avoid referring to github since it's just a convinient mirror, while [1] is an official OpenStack repository. [0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/repository-reorganization [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ Thanks, Ruslan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Ruslan, What about murano-deployment repo? The most important part of it are PowerSheel scripts, Windows Image Builder, package manifests, and some other scripts that better to keep somewhere. Where do we plan to move them? On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Ruslan Kamaldinov rkamaldi...@mirantis.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: Seeing that the following repos already exist, maybe there is some need for cleanup? - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-agent - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-common - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-dashboard - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-deployment - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-docs - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-metadataclient - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-repository - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-tests ...(did I miss others?) Can we maybe not have more git repositories and instead figure out a way to have 1 repository (perhaps with submodules?) ;-) It appears like murano is already exploding all over stackforge which makes it hard to understand why yet another repo is needed. I understand why from a code point of view, but it doesn't seem right from a code organization point of view to continue adding repos. It seems like murano (https://github.com/stackforge/murano) should just have 1 repo, with sub-repos (tests, docs, api, agent...) for its own organizational usage instead of X repos that expose others to murano's internal organizational details. -Josh Joshua, I agree that this huge number of repositories is confusing for newcomers. I've spent some time to understand mission of each of these repos. That's why we already did the cleanup :) [0] And I personally will do everything to prevent creation of new repo for Murano. Here is the list of repositories targeted for the next Murano release (Apr 17): * murano-api * murano-agent * python-muranoclient * murano-dashboard * murano-docs The rest of these repos will be deprecated right after the release. Also we will rename murano-api to just murano. murano-api will include all the Murano services, functionaltests for Tempest, Devstack scripts, developer docs. I guess we already can update README files in deprecated repos to avoid further confusion. I wouldn't agree that there should be just one repo. Almost every OpenStack project has it's own repo for python client. All the user docs are kept in a separate repo. Guest agent code should live in it's own repository to keep number of dependencies as low as possible. I'd say there should be required/comfortable minimum of repositories per project. And one more nit correction: OpenStack has it's own git repository [1]. We shoul avoid referring to github since it's just a convinient mirror, while [1] is an official OpenStack repository. [0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/repository-reorganization [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ Thanks, Ruslan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Thanks, Dmitry Teselkin Deployment Engineer Mirantis http://www.mirantis.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Hi, I suggest to move all needed Powershell scripts and etc. to the main repository 'murano' in the separate folder. +1 on this. The scripts will not go inside the PyPi package, they will be just grouped in a subfolder. Completely agree on the repo-reorganization topic in general. However And I personally will do everything to prevent creation of new repo for Murano. Well, this may be unavoidable :) We may face a need to create a murano-contrib repository where Murano users will be able to contribute sources of their own murano packages, improve the core library etc. Given that we get rid of murano-conductor, murano-repository, murano-metadataclient, murano-common, murano-tests and, probably, murano-deployment, we are probably ok with having one more. Technically, we may reuse murano-repository for this. But this can be discussed right after there 0.5 release. -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Timur Nurlygayanov tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com wrote: Dmitry, I suggest to move all needed Powershell scripts and etc. to the main repository 'murano' in the separate folder. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Dmitry Teselkin dtesel...@mirantis.comwrote: Ruslan, What about murano-deployment repo? The most important part of it are PowerSheel scripts, Windows Image Builder, package manifests, and some other scripts that better to keep somewhere. Where do we plan to move them? On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Ruslan Kamaldinov rkamaldi...@mirantis.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: Seeing that the following repos already exist, maybe there is some need for cleanup? - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-agent - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-common - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-dashboard - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-deployment - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-docs - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-metadataclient - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-repository - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-tests ...(did I miss others?) Can we maybe not have more git repositories and instead figure out a way to have 1 repository (perhaps with submodules?) ;-) It appears like murano is already exploding all over stackforge which makes it hard to understand why yet another repo is needed. I understand why from a code point of view, but it doesn't seem right from a code organization point of view to continue adding repos. It seems like murano (https://github.com/stackforge/murano) should just have 1 repo, with sub-repos (tests, docs, api, agent...) for its own organizational usage instead of X repos that expose others to murano's internal organizational details. -Josh Joshua, I agree that this huge number of repositories is confusing for newcomers. I've spent some time to understand mission of each of these repos. That's why we already did the cleanup :) [0] And I personally will do everything to prevent creation of new repo for Murano. Here is the list of repositories targeted for the next Murano release (Apr 17): * murano-api * murano-agent * python-muranoclient * murano-dashboard * murano-docs The rest of these repos will be deprecated right after the release. Also we will rename murano-api to just murano. murano-api will include all the Murano services, functionaltests for Tempest, Devstack scripts, developer docs. I guess we already can update README files in deprecated repos to avoid further confusion. I wouldn't agree that there should be just one repo. Almost every OpenStack project has it's own repo for python client. All the user docs are kept in a separate repo. Guest agent code should live in it's own repository to keep number of dependencies as low as possible. I'd say there should be required/comfortable minimum of repositories per project. And one more nit correction: OpenStack has it's own git repository [1]. We shoul avoid referring to github since it's just a convinient mirror, while [1] is an official OpenStack repository. [0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/repository-reorganization [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ Thanks, Ruslan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Thanks, Dmitry Teselkin Deployment Engineer Mirantis http://www.mirantis.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Timur, I don't know about plans to support different languages for Murano Engine. I think Murano PL may be valuable as standalone library, so I think we should extract Murano PL code to separate package, and if we will need it as a library it will be easy to extract to. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Serg, This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on 'MuranoPL') Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano Engine? Thank you! On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.comwrote: There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? 1) muranoapi.engine.language; 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; 3) suggestions? -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
+1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Serg, This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on 'MuranoPL') Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano Engine? Thank you! On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.com wrote: There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? 1) muranoapi.engine.language; 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; 3) suggestions? -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur Sufiev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano term 'language' mean Murano PL. +1 for language On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev tsuf...@mirantis.com wrote: +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Serg, This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on 'MuranoPL') Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano Engine? Thank you! On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.com wrote: There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? 1) muranoapi.engine.language; 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; 3) suggestions? -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur Sufiev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
What does PL stand for, anyway? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.comwrote: because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano term 'language' mean Murano PL. +1 for language On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev tsuf...@mirantis.comwrote: +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Serg, This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on 'MuranoPL') Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano Engine? Thank you! On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.com wrote: There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? 1) muranoapi.engine.language; 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; 3) suggestions? -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur Sufiev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Programming Language, AFAIK On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.comwrote: What does PL stand for, anyway? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.comwrote: because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano term 'language' mean Murano PL. +1 for language On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev tsuf...@mirantis.comwrote: +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Serg, This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on 'MuranoPL') Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano Engine? Thank you! On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.com wrote: There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? 1) muranoapi.engine.language; 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; 3) suggestions? -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur Sufiev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Hi Serg, Are you proposing to have a standalone git repository / stack forge project for that? Or just a separate package inside our primary murano repo? -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.comwrote: Programming Language, AFAIK On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.comwrote: What does PL stand for, anyway? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.comwrote: because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano term 'language' mean Murano PL. +1 for language On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev tsuf...@mirantis.comwrote: +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Serg, This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on 'MuranoPL') Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano Engine? Thank you! On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.com wrote: There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? 1) muranoapi.engine.language; 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; 3) suggestions? -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur Sufiev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Alexander, to have simple sub-package in muranoapi.engine/muranoapi On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Alexander Tivelkov ativel...@mirantis.comwrote: Hi Serg, Are you proposing to have a standalone git repository / stack forge project for that? Or just a separate package inside our primary murano repo? -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.comwrote: Programming Language, AFAIK On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.comwrote: What does PL stand for, anyway? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.comwrote: because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano term 'language' mean Murano PL. +1 for language On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev tsuf...@mirantis.comwrote: +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Serg, This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on 'MuranoPL') Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano Engine? Thank you! On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.com wrote: There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? 1) muranoapi.engine.language; 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; 3) suggestions? -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur Sufiev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
I like dsl most because it is a. Short. This is especially good when you have that awesome 79-chars limitation b. It leaves a lot of room for changes. MuranoPL can change name. DSL - not :) On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Alexander Tivelkov ativel...@mirantis.comwrote: Hi Serg, Are you proposing to have a standalone git repository / stack forge project for that? Or just a separate package inside our primary murano repo? -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.comwrote: Programming Language, AFAIK On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.comwrote: What does PL stand for, anyway? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.comwrote: because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano term 'language' mean Murano PL. +1 for language On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev tsuf...@mirantis.comwrote: +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Serg, This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on 'MuranoPL') Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano Engine? Thank you! On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.com wrote: There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? 1) muranoapi.engine.language; 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; 3) suggestions? -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur Sufiev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Sincerely yours Stanislav (Stan) Lagun Senior Developer Mirantis 35b/3, Vorontsovskaya St. Moscow, Russia Skype: stanlagun www.mirantis.com sla...@mirantis.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Seeing that the following repos already exist, maybe there is some need for cleanup? - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-agent - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-common - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-dashboard - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-deployment - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-docs - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-metadataclient - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-repository - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-tests …(did I miss others?) Can we maybe not have more git repositories and instead figure out a way to have 1 repository (perhaps with submodules?) ;-) It appears like murano is already exploding all over stackforge which makes it hard to understand why yet another repo is needed. I understand why from a code point of view, but it doesn't seem right from a code organization point of view to continue adding repos. It seems like murano (https://github.com/stackforge/murano) should just have 1 repo, with sub-repos (tests, docs, api, agent…) for its own organizational usage instead of X repos that expose others to murano's internal organizational details. -Josh From: Stan Lagun sla...@mirantis.commailto:sla...@mirantis.com Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: Monday, March 24, 2014 at 3:27 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package I like dsl most because it is a. Short. This is especially good when you have that awesome 79-chars limitation b. It leaves a lot of room for changes. MuranoPL can change name. DSL - not :) On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Alexander Tivelkov ativel...@mirantis.commailto:ativel...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Serg, Are you proposing to have a standalone git repository / stack forge project for that? Or just a separate package inside our primary murano repo? -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.commailto:smelik...@mirantis.com wrote: Programming Language, AFAIK On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.commailto:ogelb...@mirantis.com wrote: What does PL stand for, anyway? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.commailto:smelik...@mirantis.com wrote: because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano term 'language' mean Murano PL. +1 for language On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev tsuf...@mirantis.commailto:tsuf...@mirantis.com wrote: +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov tnurlygaya...@mirantis.commailto:tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi Serg, This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on 'MuranoPL') Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano Engine? Thank you! On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.commailto:smelik...@mirantis.com wrote: There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? 1) muranoapi.engine.language; 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; 3) suggestions? -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.commailto:smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904tel:%2B7%20%28495%29%20640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836tel:%2B7%20%28903%29%20156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur Sufiev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Serg Melikyan
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: Seeing that the following repos already exist, maybe there is some need for cleanup? - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-agent - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-common - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-dashboard - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-deployment - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-docs - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-metadataclient - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-repository - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-tests ...(did I miss others?) Can we maybe not have more git repositories and instead figure out a way to have 1 repository (perhaps with submodules?) ;-) It appears like murano is already exploding all over stackforge which makes it hard to understand why yet another repo is needed. I understand why from a code point of view, but it doesn't seem right from a code organization point of view to continue adding repos. It seems like murano (https://github.com/stackforge/murano) should just have 1 repo, with sub-repos (tests, docs, api, agent...) for its own organizational usage instead of X repos that expose others to murano's internal organizational details. -Josh Joshua, I agree that this huge number of repositories is confusing for newcomers. I've spent some time to understand mission of each of these repos. That's why we already did the cleanup :) [0] And I personally will do everything to prevent creation of new repo for Murano. Here is the list of repositories targeted for the next Murano release (Apr 17): * murano-api * murano-agent * python-muranoclient * murano-dashboard * murano-docs The rest of these repos will be deprecated right after the release. Also we will rename murano-api to just murano. murano-api will include all the Murano services, functionaltests for Tempest, Devstack scripts, developer docs. I guess we already can update README files in deprecated repos to avoid further confusion. I wouldn't agree that there should be just one repo. Almost every OpenStack project has it's own repo for python client. All the user docs are kept in a separate repo. Guest agent code should live in it's own repository to keep number of dependencies as low as possible. I'd say there should be required/comfortable minimum of repositories per project. And one more nit correction: OpenStack has it's own git repository [1]. We shoul avoid referring to github since it's just a convinient mirror, while [1] is an official OpenStack repository. [0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/repository-reorganization [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ Thanks, Ruslan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? 1) muranoapi.engine.language; 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; 3) suggestions? -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Hi Serg, This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on 'MuranoPL') Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano Engine? Thank you! On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan smelik...@mirantis.comwrote: There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? 1) muranoapi.engine.language; 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; 3) suggestions? -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
