[Rdo-list] Packaging the big tent (or at least part of it)

[Perry Myers]

On 05/26/2015 08:17 PM, Graeme Gillies wrote:
> On 05/27/2015 10:12 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/26/15, 2:41 PM, "Steve Baker" <sbaker at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/05/15 09:23, Steve Gordon wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> At the community meetup, which we held in a somewhat lightning talk
>>>> focused format due to time constraints, we touched on the subject of
>>>> packaging the big tent [1] and said that if something was under
>>>> OpenStack governance we (as a community, not we as in Red Hat) would be
>>>> willing to accept it into RDO assuming somebody was willing to
>>>> package/maintain it.
>>>>
>>>> Now packaging isn't really my end of things so I have to admit I
>>>> haven't been paying exhaustive attention to the discussion about opening
>>>> up the packaging infrastructure to external contributions, but I have
>>>> been approached by one or two people who would be interested in
>>>> packaging projects that have recently been added to the OpenStack
>>>> namespace and they either develop or maintain a key interest in. Is
>>>> there a quickstart I can point such potential contributors at?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/RDO_Vancouver
>>>>
>>> Heat had a design summit session which resulted in agreeing to remove
>>> our contrib resources and bringing big-tent resources into the main heat
>>> tree. The flow on from this is that Liberty Heat will depend on many new
>>> python-*client projects that may not yet be packaged.
>>>
>>> We do have criteria for these resources coming in-tree, such as being in
>>> the openstack namespace, and being included in global-requirements.txt,
>>> but we should have some consideration for the impact this has on
>>> downstream packaging.
>>>
>>> So either we just insist that downstream package all these clients, or
>>> we come up with some further criteria for the in-tree resources for when
>>> their client imports should be optional.
>>>
>>> Any opinions from the RDO community would be most welcome.
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> Packaging a client library is at most a 1 hour job.  Testing it is another
>> matter however :)  The only downside I see is there has to be someone
>> willing to do the packaging, meaning someone has to care about the project
>> from an RDO perspective.  I¹m happy to take on maintainership of the
>> Magnum packages for RDO (not to include puppettizing them, because I am
>> not learning puppet;), but for your proposal to work well, we need
>> maintainers for all the things.
> 
> This is an interesting idea. As we start to get more projects under big
> tent and into RDO (and the projects themselves might be in various
> states in terms of maturity and stability), it might be worthwhile
> having some documentation somewhere on the RDO website on what big tent
> projects are in RDO, and which one or more people have taken the
> ownership of packaging and maintaining them. This might be at a level
> higher than RPMs itself. Essentially some form of process/governance to
> officially identify what's in RDO (to avoid duplicates) and give people
> a way of identifying who's responsible if patches/work is needed (and
> who to contact to offer help assisting maintenance).
> 
> Does this make sense?

+1