Mailing List Archive

On 12/10/2018 14:21, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:25:20AM +0200, Martin Magr wrote:
>> Greetings guys,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
>> majopela@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Adding the mailing lists back to your reply, thank you :)
>>>
>>> I guess that +melvin.hillsman@huawei.com <melvin.hillsman@huawei.com> can
>>> help us a little bit organizing the SIG,
>>> but I guess the first thing would be collecting a list of tools which
>>> could be published
>>> under the umbrella of the SIG, starting by the ones already in Osops.
>>>
>>> Publishing documentation for those tools, and the catalog under
>>> docs.openstack.org
>>> is possibly the next step (or a parallel step).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 4:43 PM Rob McAllister <lawnboy11@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Miguel,
>>>>
>>>> I would love to join this. What do I need to do?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 9, 2018, at 03:17, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <majopela@redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday, during the Oslo meeting we discussed [6] the possibility
>>>> of creating a new Special Interest Group [1][2] to provide home and release
>>>> means for operator related tools [3] [4] [5]
>>>>
>>>>
>> all of those tools have python dependencies related to openstack such as
>> python-openstackclient or python-pbr. Which is exactly the reason why we
>> moved osops-tools-monitoring-oschecks packaging away from OpsTools SIG to
>> Cloud SIG. AFAIR we had some issues of having opstools SIG being dependent
>> on openstack SIG. I believe that Cloud SIG is proper home for tools like
>> [3][4][5] as they are related to OpenStack anyway. OpsTools SIG contains
>> general tools like fluentd, sensu, collectd.
>>
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Martin
>>
>
> Hey Martin,
>
> I'm not sure I understand the issue with these tools have dependencies on other
> packages and the relationship to SIG ownership. Is your concern (or the history
> of a concern you are pointing out) that the tools would have a more difficult
> time if they required updates to dependencies if they are owned by a different
> group?
>
> Thanks!
> Sean
>

Hello,

the mentioned sigs (opstools/cloud) are in CentOS scope and mention
repository dependencies. That shouldn't bother us here now.


There is already a SIG under the CentOS project, providing tools for
operators[7], but also documentation and integrational bits.

Also, there is some overlap with other groups and SIGs, such as
Barometer[8].

Since there is already some duplication, I don't know where it makes
sense to have a single group for this purpose?

If that hasn't been clear yet, I'd be absolutely interested in
joining/helping this effort.


Matthias



[7] https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/OpsTools
[8] https://wiki.opnfv.org/collector/pages.action?key=fastpath

--
Matthias Runge <mrunge@redhat.com>

Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Hi,

Matthias and I talked this morning about this topic, and we came to
realize
that there's room for/would be beneficial to have a common place for:

a) Documentation about second day operator tools which can be
useful with OpenStack, links to repositories or availability for every
distribution.

b) Deployment documentation/config snippets/deployment scripts for those
tools
in integration with OpenStack.

c) Operator tools and bits which are developed or maintained on OpenStack
repos,
specially the OpenStack related bits of those tools (plugins, etc),

d) Home the organisation of ops-related rooms during OpenStack events,
general
ones related to OpenStack, and also the distro-specific ones for the
distros interested
in participation.


Does this scope for the SIG make sense to everyone willing to participate?


Best regards,
Miguel Ángel.


On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:12 AM Matthias Runge <mrunge@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 12/10/2018 14:21, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:25:20AM +0200, Martin Magr wrote:
> >> Greetings guys,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
> >> majopela@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Adding the mailing lists back to your reply, thank you :)
> >>>
> >>> I guess that +melvin.hillsman@huawei.com <melvin.hillsman@huawei.com>
> can
> >>> help us a little bit organizing the SIG,
> >>> but I guess the first thing would be collecting a list of tools which
> >>> could be published
> >>> under the umbrella of the SIG, starting by the ones already in Osops.
> >>>
> >>> Publishing documentation for those tools, and the catalog under
> >>> docs.openstack.org
> >>> is possibly the next step (or a parallel step).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 4:43 PM Rob McAllister <lawnboy11@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Miguel,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would love to join this. What do I need to do?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>
> >>>> On Oct 9, 2018, at 03:17, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
> majopela@redhat.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello
> >>>>
> >>>> Yesterday, during the Oslo meeting we discussed [6] the
> possibility
> >>>> of creating a new Special Interest Group [1][2] to provide home and
> release
> >>>> means for operator related tools [3] [4] [5]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> all of those tools have python dependencies related to openstack
> such as
> >> python-openstackclient or python-pbr. Which is exactly the reason why we
> >> moved osops-tools-monitoring-oschecks packaging away from OpsTools SIG
> to
> >> Cloud SIG. AFAIR we had some issues of having opstools SIG being
> dependent
> >> on openstack SIG. I believe that Cloud SIG is proper home for tools like
> >> [3][4][5] as they are related to OpenStack anyway. OpsTools SIG contains
> >> general tools like fluentd, sensu, collectd.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hope this helps,
> >> Martin
> >>
> >
> > Hey Martin,
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand the issue with these tools have dependencies
> on other
> > packages and the relationship to SIG ownership. Is your concern (or the
> history
> > of a concern you are pointing out) that the tools would have a more
> difficult
> > time if they required updates to dependencies if they are owned by a
> different
> > group?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Sean
> >
>
> Hello,
>
> the mentioned sigs (opstools/cloud) are in CentOS scope and mention
> repository dependencies. That shouldn't bother us here now.
>
>
> There is already a SIG under the CentOS project, providing tools for
> operators[7], but also documentation and integrational bits.
>
> Also, there is some overlap with other groups and SIGs, such as
> Barometer[8].
>
> Since there is already some duplication, I don't know where it makes
> sense to have a single group for this purpose?
>
> If that hasn't been clear yet, I'd be absolutely interested in
> joining/helping this effort.
>
>
> Matthias
>
>
>
> [7] https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/OpsTools
> [8] https://wiki.opnfv.org/collector/pages.action?key=fastpath
>
> --
> Matthias Runge <mrunge@redhat.com>
>
> Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
> Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
> Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>


--
Miguel Ángel Ajo
OSP / Networking DFG, OVN Squad Engineering

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 5:19 AM Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
<majopela@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Matthias and I talked this morning about this topic, and we came to realize
> that there's room for/would be beneficial to have a common place for:
>
> a) Documentation about second day operator tools which can be
> useful with OpenStack, links to repositories or availability for every distribution.
>
Sounds like a Natural extension to the Ops Guide [1] which we've been
working to return to relevance. I suppose this could also be a wiki
like [2], but we should at least reference it in the guide. In any
event, massive cleanup of old, outdated content really needs to be
undertaken. That should be the other part of the mission I think.

> b) Deployment documentation/config snippets/deployment scripts for those tools
> in integration with OpenStack.
>
> c) Operator tools and bits which are developed or maintained on OpenStack repos,
> specially the OpenStack related bits of those tools (plugins, etc),
>
We should probably try and revive [3] and make use of that more
effectively to address b and c. We've been trying to encourage
contribution to it for years, but it needs more contributors and some
TLC

> d) Home the organisation of ops-related rooms during OpenStack events, general
> ones related to OpenStack, and also the distro-specific ones for the distros interested
> in participation.
>
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this item. We currently have a
team responsible for meetups and pushing Ops-related content into the
Forum at Summits. Do you propose merging the Ops Meetup Team into this
SIG?
>
> Does this scope for the SIG make sense to everyone willing to participate?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Miguel Ángel.
>
[1] https://docs.openstack.org/operations-guide/
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations
[3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Osops#Code

-Erik

>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:12 AM Matthias Runge <mrunge@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/2018 14:21, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:25:20AM +0200, Martin Magr wrote:
>> >> Greetings guys,
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
>> >> majopela@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Adding the mailing lists back to your reply, thank you :)
>> >>>
>> >>> I guess that +melvin.hillsman@huawei.com <melvin.hillsman@huawei.com> can
>> >>> help us a little bit organizing the SIG,
>> >>> but I guess the first thing would be collecting a list of tools which
>> >>> could be published
>> >>> under the umbrella of the SIG, starting by the ones already in Osops.
>> >>>
>> >>> Publishing documentation for those tools, and the catalog under
>> >>> docs.openstack.org
>> >>> is possibly the next step (or a parallel step).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 4:43 PM Rob McAllister <lawnboy11@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi Miguel,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I would love to join this. What do I need to do?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Oct 9, 2018, at 03:17, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <majopela@redhat.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hello
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yesterday, during the Oslo meeting we discussed [6] the possibility
>> >>>> of creating a new Special Interest Group [1][2] to provide home and release
>> >>>> means for operator related tools [3] [4] [5]
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >> all of those tools have python dependencies related to openstack such as
>> >> python-openstackclient or python-pbr. Which is exactly the reason why we
>> >> moved osops-tools-monitoring-oschecks packaging away from OpsTools SIG to
>> >> Cloud SIG. AFAIR we had some issues of having opstools SIG being dependent
>> >> on openstack SIG. I believe that Cloud SIG is proper home for tools like
>> >> [3][4][5] as they are related to OpenStack anyway. OpsTools SIG contains
>> >> general tools like fluentd, sensu, collectd.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hope this helps,
>> >> Martin
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hey Martin,
>> >
>> > I'm not sure I understand the issue with these tools have dependencies on other
>> > packages and the relationship to SIG ownership. Is your concern (or the history
>> > of a concern you are pointing out) that the tools would have a more difficult
>> > time if they required updates to dependencies if they are owned by a different
>> > group?
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > Sean
>> >
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> the mentioned sigs (opstools/cloud) are in CentOS scope and mention
>> repository dependencies. That shouldn't bother us here now.
>>
>>
>> There is already a SIG under the CentOS project, providing tools for
>> operators[7], but also documentation and integrational bits.
>>
>> Also, there is some overlap with other groups and SIGs, such as
>> Barometer[8].
>>
>> Since there is already some duplication, I don't know where it makes
>> sense to have a single group for this purpose?
>>
>> If that hasn't been clear yet, I'd be absolutely interested in
>> joining/helping this effort.
>>
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>
>>
>> [7] https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/OpsTools
>> [8] https://wiki.opnfv.org/collector/pages.action?key=fastpath
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Runge <mrunge@redhat.com>
>>
>> Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
>> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
>> Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
>> Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
>
> --
> Miguel Ángel Ajo
> OSP / Networking DFG, OVN Squad Engineering
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Additional comments in-line.

I am open to restructuring things around the tools and repos that they are
managed in. As previously mentioned please include me in the list of folks
who want to be a part of the team.

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:45 AM Erik McCormick <emccormick@cirrusseven.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 5:19 AM Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
> <majopela@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Matthias and I talked this morning about this topic, and we came to
> realize
> > that there's room for/would be beneficial to have a common place for:
> >
> > a) Documentation about second day operator tools which can be
> > useful with OpenStack, links to repositories or availability for
> every distribution.
> >
> Sounds like a Natural extension to the Ops Guide [1] which we've been
> working to return to relevance. I suppose this could also be a wiki
> like [2], but we should at least reference it in the guide. In any
> event, massive cleanup of old, outdated content really needs to be
> undertaken. That should be the other part of the mission I think.
>

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operation_Docs_SIG


>
> > b) Deployment documentation/config snippets/deployment scripts for those
> tools
> > in integration with OpenStack.
> >
> > c) Operator tools and bits which are developed or maintained on
> OpenStack repos,
> > specially the OpenStack related bits of those tools (plugins, etc),
> >
> We should probably try and revive [3] and make use of that more
> effectively to address b and c. We've been trying to encourage
> contribution to it for years, but it needs more contributors and some
> TLC
>

Ops Tools SIG could facilitate this. Being involved particularly here I
think it would be great to have more folks involved and with the addition
of OpenLab we have a space to do a bit more around e2e and integration
testing of the tools.


>
> > d) Home the organisation of ops-related rooms during OpenStack events,
> general
> > ones related to OpenStack, and also the distro-specific ones for
> the distros interested
> > in participation.
> >
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this item. We currently have a
> team responsible for meetups and pushing Ops-related content into the
> Forum at Summits. Do you propose merging the Ops Meetup Team into this
> SIG?
>

Yes, there is already the Ops Meetup Team which facilitates this and of
course anyone is encouraged to join and get involved:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Ops_Meetups_Team


> >
> > Does this scope for the SIG make sense to everyone willing to
> participate?
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Miguel Ángel.
> >
> [1] https://docs.openstack.org/operations-guide/
> [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations
> [3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Osops#Code
>
> -Erik
>
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:12 AM Matthias Runge <mrunge@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/10/2018 14:21, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:25:20AM +0200, Martin Magr wrote:
> >> >> Greetings guys,
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
> >> >> majopela@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Adding the mailing lists back to your reply, thank you :)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I guess that +melvin.hillsman@huawei.com <
> melvin.hillsman@huawei.com> can
> >> >>> help us a little bit organizing the SIG,
> >> >>> but I guess the first thing would be collecting a list of tools
> which
> >> >>> could be published
> >> >>> under the umbrella of the SIG, starting by the ones already in
> Osops.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Publishing documentation for those tools, and the catalog under
> >> >>> docs.openstack.org
> >> >>> is possibly the next step (or a parallel step).
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 4:43 PM Rob McAllister <lawnboy11@gmail.com
> >
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Hi Miguel,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I would love to join this. What do I need to do?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Oct 9, 2018, at 03:17, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
> majopela@redhat.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hello
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Yesterday, during the Oslo meeting we discussed [6] the
> possibility
> >> >>>> of creating a new Special Interest Group [1][2] to provide home
> and release
> >> >>>> means for operator related tools [3] [4] [5]
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >> all of those tools have python dependencies related to openstack
> such as
> >> >> python-openstackclient or python-pbr. Which is exactly the reason
> why we
> >> >> moved osops-tools-monitoring-oschecks packaging away from OpsTools
> SIG to
> >> >> Cloud SIG. AFAIR we had some issues of having opstools SIG being
> dependent
> >> >> on openstack SIG. I believe that Cloud SIG is proper home for tools
> like
> >> >> [3][4][5] as they are related to OpenStack anyway. OpsTools SIG
> contains
> >> >> general tools like fluentd, sensu, collectd.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hope this helps,
> >> >> Martin
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Hey Martin,
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure I understand the issue with these tools have
> dependencies on other
> >> > packages and the relationship to SIG ownership. Is your concern (or
> the history
> >> > of a concern you are pointing out) that the tools would have a more
> difficult
> >> > time if they required updates to dependencies if they are owned by a
> different
> >> > group?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> > Sean
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> the mentioned sigs (opstools/cloud) are in CentOS scope and mention
> >> repository dependencies. That shouldn't bother us here now.
> >>
> >>
> >> There is already a SIG under the CentOS project, providing tools for
> >> operators[7], but also documentation and integrational bits.
> >>
> >> Also, there is some overlap with other groups and SIGs, such as
> >> Barometer[8].
> >>
> >> Since there is already some duplication, I don't know where it makes
> >> sense to have a single group for this purpose?
> >>
> >> If that hasn't been clear yet, I'd be absolutely interested in
> >> joining/helping this effort.
> >>
> >>
> >> Matthias
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [7] https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/OpsTools
> >> [8] https://wiki.opnfv.org/collector/pages.action?key=fastpath
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matthias Runge <mrunge@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
> >> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
> >> Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
> >> Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Miguel Ángel Ajo
> > OSP / Networking DFG, OVN Squad Engineering
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>


--
Kind regards,

Melvin Hillsman
mrhillsman@gmail.com
mobile: (832) 264-2646