osdir.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[tc][all] Train Community Goals



On 1/31/19 9:59 AM, Lance Bragstad wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I thought it would be good to have a quick recap of the various goal
> proposals.
>
> *Project clean-up*
>
> Adrian and Tobias Rydberg have volunteered to champion the goal. There
> has also been some productive discussion around the approaches
> detailed in the etherpad [0]. At this point is it safe to assume we've
> come to a conclusion on the proposed approach? If so, I think the next
> logical step would be to do a gap analysis on what the proposed
> approach would mean work-wise for all projects. Note, Assaf Muller
> brought the approach Neutron takes to my attention [1] and I wanted to
> highlight this here since it establishes a template for us to follow,
> or at least look at. Note, Neutron's approach is client-based, which
> might not be orthogonal with the client goal. Just something to keep
> in mind if those two happen to be accepted for the same release.

Is there anything preventing this goal from making its way into review?
The goal has champions and a plan for implementation.

>
> [0] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/community-goal-project-deletion
> [1] https://github.com/openstack/python-neutronclient/blob/master/neutronclient/neutron/v2_0/purge.py
>
> *Moving legacy clients to python-openstackclient*
>
> Artem has done quite a bit of pre-work here [2], which has been useful
> in understanding the volume of work required to complete this goal in
> its entirety. I suggest we look for seams where we can break this into
> more consumable pieces of work for a given release.
>
> For example, one possible goal would be to work on parity with
> python-openstackclient and openstacksdk. A follow-on goal would be to
> move the legacy clients. Alternatively, we could start to move all the
> project clients logic into python-openstackclient, and then have
> another goal to implement the common logic gaps into openstacksdk.
> Arriving at the same place but using different paths. The approach
> still has to be discussed and proposed. I do think it is apparent that
> we'll need to break this up, however.

Artem's call for help is still open [0]. Artem, has anyone reached out
to you about co-championing the goal? Do you have suggestions for how
you'd like to break up the work to make the goal more achievable,
especially if you're the only one championing the initiative?

<http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/002275.html>

>
> [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/osc-gaps-analysis
>
> *Healthcheck middleware*
>
> There is currently no volunteer to champion for this goal. The first
> iteration of the work on the oslo.middleware was updated [3], and a
> gap analysis was started on the mailing lists [4].
> If you want to get involved in this goal, don't hesitate to answer on
> the ML thread there.

This goal still needs at least one champion. Based on recent feedback
and discussions, we still need to smooth out some wrinkles in the
implementation (see cdent's note about checks [1]). Regardless, it
sounds like this effort is still in the prework phase and would greatly
benefit from a PoC before pushing this as a Train goal for review.
Should we consider that goal for U instead?

Just a reminder that we would like to have all potential goals proposed
for review in governance in the next days,giving us 6 weeks to hash out
details in Gerrit if we plan to have the goals merged bythe end of
March. This should give us 4 weeks to prepare anydiscussions we'd like
to have in-person pertaining to those goals.

Thanks for the time,

Jean-Philippe & Lance

[0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/002275.html
[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/002126.html

>
> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/617924/2
> [4] https://ethercalc.openstack.org/di0mxkiepll8
>
> Just a reminder that we would like to have all potential goals
> proposed for review in openstack/governance by the middle of this
> month, giving us 6 weeks to hash out details in Gerrit if we plan to
> have the goals merged by the end of March. This timeframe should give
> us 4 weeks to prepare any discussions we'd like to have in-person
> pertaining to those goals.
>
> Thanks for the time,
>
> Lance
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 4:11 AM Jean-Philippe Evrard
> <jean-philippe at evrard.me <mailto:jean-philippe at evrard.me>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 06:58 +1300, Adrian Turjak wrote:
>     > I put my hand up during the summit for being at least one of the
>     > champions for the deletion of project resources effort.
>     >
>     > I have been meaning to do a follow up email and options as well as
>     > steps
>     > for how the goal might go, but my working holiday in Europe
>     after the
>     > summit turned into more of a holiday than originally planned.
>     >
>     > I'll get a thread going around what I (and the public cloud working
>     > group) think project resource deletion should look like, and
>     what the
>     > options are, and where we should aim to be with it. We can then turn
>     > that discussion into a final 'spec' of sorts.
>     >
>     >
>
>     Great news!
>
>     Do you need any help to get started there?
>
>     Regards,
>     JP
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190214/dc25d464/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190214/dc25d464/attachment-0001.sig>