fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[David Easter <deaster@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As an open source project that can be used for deployments outside of
Mirantis, it would be good for the community if someone could use Fuel to
deploy onto other operating systems if the appropriate deployment logic were
added.  In other words, the project should not explicitly deny the ability
to extend the control plane to other operating systems.  However, it¹s very
reasonable for any company, like Mirantis, that provides a product to
include the list of supported operating systems in a config file or
parameter.  The Fuel project would then error out if the OS name was not in
that list.  I¹d even be ok with that file containing the Mirantis supported
operating systems by default, but that could be changed by a community
member for their own distribution.

It would obviously fall to the community to add in the additional code/logic
to deploy on other operating systems ­ but the Fuel project shouldn¹t deny
that opportunity.

Thanks,

- David J. Easter
  Director of Product Management, Mirantis

From:  Nikolay Markov <nmarkov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 9:19 AM
To:  Evgeniy L <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:  "fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:  Re: [Fuel-dev] Custom OSes in release

>> What kind of issue it will help to avoid?

To avoid getting our customers in trouble.

>> in my case user can just add it

No, he can't. It won't work. The sooner he will know it the better.

>>  there will be a lot of failed deployments during development and debugging
anyway

Why? No, it won't. We don't have cases where we need to modify it by hands
and see what happens, because we already have strict list of OSes we
support. And if someone of our clients or deployment engineers does that -
it will be better for him to know this won't work from the beginning, isn't
it?




On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Evgeniy L <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> to avoid all possible issues
> 
> What kind of issue it will help to avoid?
> 
> I want to avoid constraints where they are not required, in your case user
> have to add new migration file and then migrate database to add new field in
> enum, in my case user can just add it. In your and mine cases user have to add
> additional logic in our serializers and there will be a lot of failed
> deployments during development and debugging anyway.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Nikolay Markov <nmarkov@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hello colleagues,
>> 
>> What is our policy regarding specifying custom OS names in releases in
>> openstack.yaml or via API? I mean, we only support two OSes, which are CentOS
>> and Ubuntu, and already have some OS-based logic in our code, which will just
>> not execute if OS name is 'Suse', for example.
>> 
>> Evgeny Li says we should allow specifying custom names, currently it causes
>> no errors until you try to deploy an environment with this release.
>> 
>> I think in this case we may implement this as a ENUM in DB and forbid
>> creating releases with different OS names at all, to avoid all possible
>> issues.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> Nick Markov
>> 
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>> Post to     : fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>> 
> 



-- 
Best regards,
Nick Markov
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to     :
fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp