On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 09:20 -0400, Ofer Schreiber wrote: > As decided earlier, oVirt next release (3.1) is targeted for Fedora > 17. > Since the engine uses JBoss, we have two deployment options: > 1. Continue working with ovirt-engine-jbossas package > PROS: Single rpm. known upgrade method. > CONS: Maintaining un-natural zip based rpm. No official support. > Can't be pushed into Fedora. > > 2. Move to JBoss F17 official packages: > PROS: Fully supported F17 rpms (including bug fixes, security > fixes, etc). "The right thing to do". > CONS: Upgrade from first release (relaying on old jboss) will be > almost impossible, Some open issues (will it work just as as normal > service? or will we need to code a new one?), Might cause a delay to > Feature Freeze. Quick thoughts -- this will come up for every release until we decide on #2. The con for #2 will always be there until we finally switch over. I think it's less impact to have a more manual upgrade between release 1 and 2 than between later releases. As long as we can provide at least a manual upgrade process with well defined steps so that the early adopters don't have to re-create their environments, I think we should go with #2.

As decided earlier, oVirt next release (3.1) is targeted for Fedora 17. Since the engine uses JBoss, we have two deployment options: 1. Continue working with ovirt-engine-jbossas package PROS: Single rpm. known upgrade method. CONS: Maintaining un-natural zip based rpm. No official support. Can't be pushed into Fedora. 2. Move to JBoss F17 official packages: PROS: Fully supported F17 rpms (including bug fixes, security fixes, etc). "The right thing to do". CONS: Upgrade from first release (relaying on old jboss) will be almost impossible, Some open issues (will it work just as as normal service? or will we need to code a new one?), Might cause a delay to Feature Freeze. Thought? Comments?

Share them with us! --- Ofer Schreiber oVirt Release Manager _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

On 04/18/2012 11:17 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: > On 17/04/12 16:20, Ofer Schreiber wrote: >> As decided earlier, oVirt next release (3.1) is targeted for Fedora 17. >> Since the engine uses JBoss, we have two deployment options: >> 1. Continue working with ovirt-engine-jbossas package >> PROS: Single rpm. known upgrade method. >> CONS: Maintaining un-natural zip based rpm. No official support. Can't be pushed into Fedora. >> >> 2. Move to JBoss F17 official packages: >> PROS: Fully supported F17 rpms (including bug fixes, security fixes, etc). "The right thing to do". >> CONS: Upgrade from first release (relaying on old jboss) will be almost impossible, Some open issues (will it work just as as normal service? or will we need to code a new one?), Might cause a delay to Feature Freeze. >> >> Thought? Comments? > > I think it is too soon to move to the Jboss packaged for Fedora17. > It was just packaged and I am not aware of any developer actually > working with oVirt on the Jboss packaged for Fedora (except for one). > I expect to at least have the developers working with this Jboss for a > while before releasing on it. > > Can anyone provide info on how different is Jboss for Fedora than the > current upstream Jboss we use? The main difference is that the version being packaged for Fedora 17 contains a subset of the modules: those needed for the web profile except Hibernate. In addition the main configuration file is also different: standalone-web.xml instead of standalone.xml. Additional modules will be added as needed. Eventually all the modules available upstream will be available in the Fedora packaging, but that will take time. With the currently available packages ovirt-engine 3.0 can run correctly (only backend and restapi, not the frontend). It needs changes, but it can run, and most of those changes are not really related to the differences in jboss-as, but to the differences in other packages like quartz, resteasy, jackson, spring, etc. I believe that the same applies to 3.1.

In order for a ovirt developer to use the Fedora packaging it will need a lot of additional modules and tools, specially for the frontend, that are not currently available in Fedora 17. If we wait for that then we should re-target for Fedora 18.

My opinion is that we should use the Fedora 17 packages for deployment, independently of what we use for development. It is challenging, but I believe is "the right thing to do".

On 04/18/2012 12:18 PM, Livnat Peer wrote: > On 18/04/12 12:42, Juan Hernandez wrote: >> On 04/18/2012 11:17 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: >>> On 17/04/12 16:20, Ofer Schreiber wrote: >>>> As decided earlier, oVirt next release (3.1) is targeted for Fedora 17. >>>> Since the engine uses JBoss, we have two deployment options: >>>> 1. Continue working with ovirt-engine-jbossas package >>>> PROS: Single rpm. known upgrade method. >>>> CONS: Maintaining un-natural zip based rpm. No official support. Can't be pushed into Fedora. >>>> >>>> 2. Move to JBoss F17 official packages: >>>> PROS: Fully supported F17 rpms (including bug fixes, security fixes, etc). "The right thing to do". >>>> CONS: Upgrade from first release (relaying on old jboss) will be almost impossible, Some open issues (will it work just as as normal service? or will we need to code a new one?), Might cause a delay to Feature Freeze. >>>> >>>> Thought? Comments? >>> >>> I think it is too soon to move to the Jboss packaged for Fedora17. >>> It was just packaged and I am not aware of any developer actually >>> working with oVirt on the Jboss packaged for Fedora (except for one). >>> I expect to at least have the developers working with this Jboss for a >>> while before releasing on it. >>> >>> Can anyone provide info on how different is Jboss for Fedora than the >>> current upstream Jboss we use? >> >> The main difference is that the version being packaged for Fedora 17 >> contains a subset of the modules: those needed for the web profile >> except Hibernate. In addition the main configuration file is also >> different: standalone-web.xml instead of standalone.xml. Additional >> modules will be added as needed. Eventually all the modules available >> upstream will be available in the Fedora packaging, but that will take time. >> >> With the currently available packages ovirt-engine 3.0 can run correctly >> (only backend and restapi, not the frontend). It needs changes, but it >> can run, and most of those changes are not really related to the >> differences in jboss-as, but to the differences in other packages like >> quartz, resteasy, jackson, spring, etc. I believe that the same applies >> to 3.1. > > Maybe for 3.1 we should change upstream to use the same Jar versions as > we use in the Fedora deployment. That would take us one step closer to a > parity version. That would be great! There are some changes that could help with that: http://gerrit.ovirt.org/3250 - Update to Quartz 2.1 http://gerrit.ovirt.org/3251 - Update to Jackson 1.9.2 http://gerrit.ovirt.org/1390 - Remove Spring from RESTAPI http://gerrit.ovirt.org/3002 - Update to Spring 3 http://gerrit.ovirt.org/2347 - Add methods missing in PGHack http://gerrit.ovirt.org/2354 - Don't require activation http://gerrit.ovirt.org/3249 - Remove dependency on JNA http://gerrit.ovirt.org/3086 - Replace pubkey2ssh with ssh-keygen Some of them still need work from the author ;-)

>> In order for a ovirt developer to use the Fedora packaging it will need >> a lot of additional modules and tools, specially for the frontend, that >> are not currently available in Fedora 17. If we wait for that then we >> should re-target for Fedora 18. > > Is that mean that our next release, if we use Jboss packaged in Fedora, > will not include UI? No, I didn't explain it correctly, sorry. It means the the "official" ovirt-engine package included in Fedora 17 can't contain the UI (because GWT is not in Fedora 17 yet). But the "unofficial" ovirt-engine package can include it, and the official jboss-as package should be enough to run the it.

>> My opinion is that we should use the Fedora 17 packages for deployment, >> independently of what we use for development. It is challenging, but I >> believe is "the right thing to do". > > Juan, thank you for the detailed answer. > > I suggest that for the upcoming release we'll do both, have 2 release > flavors, one RPM's like we released for 3.0 (with Jboss included) and > the other one tailored for Fedora. My suggestion is that even if we decide to have two flavors of the ovirt-engine packages (the official one without the UI and the unofficial one with the UI) both should use the official jboss-as package.

On 18/04/12 12:42, Juan Hernandez wrote: > On 04/18/2012 11:17 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: >> On 17/04/12 16:20, Ofer Schreiber wrote: >>> As decided earlier, oVirt next release (3.1) is targeted for >>> Fedora 17. >>> Since the engine uses JBoss, we have two deployment options: >>> 1. Continue working with ovirt-engine-jbossas package >>> PROS: Single rpm. known upgrade method. >>> CONS: Maintaining un-natural zip based rpm. No official >>> support. Can't be pushed into Fedora. >>> >>> 2. Move to JBoss F17 official packages: >>> PROS: Fully supported F17 rpms (including bug fixes, security >>> fixes, etc). "The right thing to do". >>> CONS: Upgrade from first release (relaying on old jboss) will >>> be almost impossible, Some open issues (will it work just as >>> as normal service? or will we need to code a new one?), Might >>> cause a delay to Feature Freeze. >>> >>> Thought? Comments? >> >> I think it is too soon to move to the Jboss packaged for Fedora17. >> It was just packaged and I am not aware of any developer actually >> working with oVirt on the Jboss packaged for Fedora (except for >> one). >> I expect to at least have the developers working with this Jboss >> for a >> while before releasing on it. >> >> Can anyone provide info on how different is Jboss for Fedora than >> the >> current upstream Jboss we use? > > The main difference is that the version being packaged for Fedora > 17 > contains a subset of the modules: those needed for the web profile > except Hibernate. In addition the main configuration file is also > different: standalone-web.xml instead of standalone.xml. Additional > modules will be added as needed. Eventually all the modules > available > upstream will be available in the Fedora packaging, but that will > take time. > > With the currently available packages ovirt-engine 3.0 can run > correctly > (only backend and restapi, not the frontend). It needs changes, but > it > can run, and most of those changes are not really related to the > differences in jboss-as, but to the differences in other packages > like > quartz, resteasy, jackson, spring, etc. I believe that the same > applies > to 3.1. Maybe for 3.1 we should change upstream to use the same Jar versions as we use in the Fedora deployment. That would take us one step closer to a parity version. > > In order for a ovirt developer to use the Fedora packaging it will > need > a lot of additional modules and tools, specially for the frontend, > that > are not currently available in Fedora 17. If we wait for that then > we > should re-target for Fedora 18. > Is that mean that our next release, if we use Jboss packaged in Fedora, will not include UI? > My opinion is that we should use the Fedora 17 packages for > deployment, > independently of what we use for development. It is challenging, > but I > believe is "the right thing to do". Juan, thank you for the detailed answer. I suggest that for the upcoming release we'll do both, have 2 release flavors, one RPM's like we released for 3.0 (with Jboss included) and the other one tailored for Fedora.

Thanks, Livnat