This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --rUake15nkmeqAJaPQq15DNkrU3qSBauM5 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Bc659WIoxXX4Lhv6F7nK4c8PBqsasJf6j" From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyYyBEZXF1w6huZXMgKER1Y2sp?= <duck(a)redhat.com&gt; To: oVirt Infra <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt; Cc: Michael Scherer <misc(a)redhat.com&gt;, Karsten Wade <kwade(a)redhat.com&gt; Message-ID: <81a28335-daf0-6bec-f7ae-92490f605606(a)redhat.com&gt; Subject: Ansible work and organization --Bc659WIoxXX4Lhv6F7nK4c8PBqsasJf6j Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello folks, Since I started working on MM3 migration using Ansible, I received absolutely no feedback on the Ansible side of my work (and I asked several time, specifically on this aspect). At first I was new in the project, this was an attempt, I did not have much access, so it was created as an external git repository. Now very quickly an 'infra-ansible' repo was created and is already filling with review requests, but it seems to me we missed a few steps to coordinate. I'm not very familiar with the Gerrit workflow, but I'm learning, that's why I asked how I could integrate my work into the new repo but got no reply. It seemed to me my work could be a proper startup point, but now I'm faced with splitting and reintegrating my work with what is already coming in. It feels really useless a work, frustrating, and I also see no reason to loose all the history. Also I talked (ML, JIRA) about the roles we (in OSAS) were working on in order to share the load of the maintenance across several projects. Our experience is we often need almost the same classic features, so no reason to recreate the wheel and maintain different versions. We cannot trust any role on the Internet, but we can trust people in Red Hat or well known contributors. Nobody seemed to have an objection on this; nobody adked any question either. Nevertheless now the incoming reviews shows all of this is ignored and we're doing exactly it: a new postgresql role just popped-up in one review for example=C2=B8 but we alr= eady have one which is used by the MM3 work. I really tried to not be pushy, to ask for your opinions and reviews, but not much happened. I thought people were busy and it would come in time. Now I really don't know how I can catch up. So, we need to discuss: - how OSAS is going to work with the infra team: I'm new, so it's ok to feel a bit off, but I'd like better coordinati= on. I should not have to do extra work for integrating what I did on MM3, so clearly it's a failure I would like to avoid in the future. - how the config management will be organized/managed: there's many ways to organize, to call the roles, to test the rules. I've based my work on Misc's good work and added a few things myself.= I've also started working on testing using Vagrant: it works but has limitations. There's other attempts on the Internet but they also have drawbacks, maybe others we did not find yet. So there's room for discussion too, and integration with your CI. The current setup is in my repo. - how some resources (Ansible roles=E2=80=A6) are to be shared or not: the OSAS team is very small, shares its time and energy among several projects, you have several people with a good Puppet background but less so on Ansible, so I would advise sharing workload. The OSAS team can act as a neutral third party and insure all needed features are taken into account, reviews are done in a timely manner, for example. It was just a logical move from us to allow us spending less time on these tasks=C2=B8 but this is open to discussion (as stated on my previous mess= ages) As we say here: yoroshiku onegai shimasu. \_o< --Bc659WIoxXX4Lhv6F7nK4c8PBqsasJf6j-- --rUake15nkmeqAJaPQq15DNkrU3qSBauM5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" --rUake15nkmeqAJaPQq15DNkrU3qSBauM5--