On 06/08/2016 07:05 PM, Ivan Chavero wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Pevec" <apevec(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Ivan Chavero" <ichavero(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: "rdo-list" <rdo-list(a)redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:48:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [rdo-list] Packstack refactor and future ideas
>
>> I don't agree with this, we can set the untested features as
"experimental"
> or "unsupported"
>
> Best is to remove them to make that clear, because no matter what
> deprecation warnings you put[*] people will keep using features until
> they're gone, giving us bug reports to take care of and without CI to
> verify fixes.
> It's long-term maintenance burden I am concerned about, for features
> which are clearly out of scope.
I understand this, my concern is that if we remove this feature we will leave
users with no tool for doing multinode in a lightweight way and this might
drive off users from testing/adopting RDO.
I think it is starting to have the opposite effect. Packstack, being
available, gives the wrong idea about RDO: you are supposed to install
bare metal.
The Tripleo Quickstart approach is that everything is in a VM.
Packstack is doing too much: image building, provision, and running the
system.
A better approach would be to have our tooling set out so that a user
can build their own images, and then deploy to a VM. OR better yet, a
container.
We need to drive on to Kolla.
Kolla as the Controller for Tripleo and Kolla running in a VM and Kolla
running on my desktop should all be close enough to identical to avoid
the fragmentation we have now.
I'm willing to create CI tests for multinode Packstack in order to maintain
this features.
And believe me it would be easier for me just to drop this features but i really
think users are benefiting from this features.
Cheers,
Ivan
_______________________________________________
rdo-list mailing list
rdo-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe(a)redhat.com