[rdo-dev] RDO infra/TripleO-CI teams integration level on infrastructure

[Gabriele Cerami]

----- Original Message -----
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for starting this thread and apologies for not replying sooner.
> 
> TL;DR:
> By means of "integration" between the two teams, I see this mostly as:
> - Let's talk to each other more (specs, discussing what you need, etc)
> - Let's do this in the open (this thread is a great start)
> - Let's collaborate and maintain a common set of roles and playbooks
>   to drive the entire infrastructure rather than siloed components

Hi,

I understand there is a lot of confusion at the moment as we are closing our
sprint, and pushing our reviews.
I started this thread with the best intentions, but I started it too late.
We did not formally discuss about this integration in details during our planning
meeting, and especially after the last reply, I realized that to integrate how
we would like to, we would have needed to start planning way before.
We needed to have our full requirements ready, then point out similarities in
our needs and differences, and plan the changes in the existing to reach the
level of functionality we needed.
 
After David's reply I spent some time trying to reuse part of the existing
infrastructure playbooks, but it was making too many assumptions that
turned out to be wrong for us, or would just taken too much work to complete.
I tried to see how we could take advantage of the existing logserver, but again
adapting our custom scripts needed too much time.
All this while we were also trying to better define *OUR* requirements for the 
sprint especially from a security point of view.

At this point, we can assume that the integration, as I proposed, and envisioned,
is not happening, certainly not in this sprint. And for various reasons:
1) It wasn't formally accepted from both parts. I appreciated the openings from
David, but we didn't reach any consensus. I didn't hear from anyone except David.
There was informal acceptance in our team, but we didn't have time to set a roadmap.
It's not fair to take this thread as roadmap, and ask why we are not following
this path: our teams never really agreed to do what's written here. To be honest
I really thought this wasn't the direction we wanted to move to, since there wasn't
a definitive OK. I thought this was still just a proposal.
2) As I stated, this would have required a lot more efforts at least in the
initial phase. My proposal came at the end of the week reserved to the design
part of the sprint, because that's when I realized we could have done a lot
together, but it was opening too many fronts, required a different direction, and
it was too late to steer the whole sprint.
3) There is a lot more to iron out on some topics, like the bastion/jumphost, as
they are mutually exclusive visions, and our requirements here conflict.

I would really have liked this to happen, but we really need a lot more discussion
in this thread than actually happened until now, before we can consider this the
effective path.