[rdo-list] Packstack refactor and future ideas

[Mohammed Arafa]

Is this the beginning of a merge between packsack and triple quick start?
It diesnt make sense to have 2 project do the same thing
On Jun 8, 2016 3:30 PM, "Ivan Chavero" <ichavero at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Javier Pena" <javier.pena at redhat.com>
> > To: "rdo-list" <rdo-list at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 11:29:54 AM
> > Subject: [rdo-list] Packstack refactor and future ideas
> >
> > Hi RDO,
> >
> > After some discussions about the way Packstack was (mis)using Puppet,
> and how
> > to improve it, I've been working on a refactor. Its current state is
> > available at
> > https://github.com/javierpena/packstack/tree/feature/manifest_refactor,
> and
> > as soon as it is polished it will go to Gerrit. It basically tries to
> reduce
> > the number of Puppet executions to one per server role (controller,
> network
> > node, compute), instead of multiple individual runs.
>
> I think it can be reduced to a single manifest per node.
> Also, when a review is created it would be easier to check if you create
> one
> review for the python, puppet, tests and release notes.
>
> > While talking about the refactor, a second discussion about a deeper
> change
> > was started. I'd like to summarize the current concerns and ideas in this
> > mail, so we can follow-up and make a decision:
> >
> > - Currently, the Packstack CI is only testing single-node installs.
> Testing
> > multi-node installs upstream has been challenging, and multi-node may go
> > beyond the PoC target of Packstack. So, one proposal is to keep
> all-in-one
> > single node only, add Ansible wrapper (in unsupported contrib/ subfolder)
> > reading *_HOSTS parameters for backward compat.
> >
>
> I would like to have packstack to be multi node since the requirements for
> TripleO are still to big for PoC.
>
> > - Another idea was to refactor the Packstack Python part around Ansible,
> > summarized at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/packstack-refactor-take2
> .
> > This proposal aims at keeping multi-node support, since Ansible makes it
> > easy anyway.
>
> Does it make sense to convert packstack to an ansible module?
>
>
> >
> > Any other ideas/concerns? Pros and cons of each?
>
> I started a refactor [1] as part of a manifest cleanup, unifcation and to
> start de refactor discussion, i'm happy that Javier took the
> puppet-openstack-integration
> road.
> Another idea around this refactor is to make packstack create manifests
> that can be used even without packstack runs, installing them in the
> proper puppet
> environment directories and setting the OPM path as part of the this
> OpenStack? environment,
> thus making packstack a puppet manifest generator...
>
> Cheers,
> Ivan
>
>
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/307519/
>
> _______________________________________________
> rdo-list mailing list
> rdo-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
>
> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rdoproject.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160608/39d4cc02/attachment.html>