On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Ken Dreyer kdreyer@redhat.com wrote:

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:40 PM, François Cami fcami@fedoraproject.org wrote:

...

The main Ceph Jewel installer is based on Ansible, so the Ceph part of the Storage SIG would like to be a consumer of the Config Management SIG Ansible bits.

However, Ceph upstream has confirmed:

• 1.9.4 and 2.0.0.1 are 100% compatible
• 2.1 should work (but is quite probably not tested at all)

I'm involved with this work a bit on the Ceph side, and Ansible 2.0.0.1 is not something I'm testing at all; it's all been 1.9.x so far. Maybe others are testing ceph-ansible on Ansible 2.x, but I've found 2.0.x to be very buggy, personally.

Noted. I'll use 1.9.x.

Thank you, François

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Julien Pivotto roidelapluie@inuits.eu wrote:

On 05 May 21:40, François Cami wrote:

...

Hi,

The main Ceph Jewel installer is based on Ansible, so the Ceph part of the Storage SIG would like to be a consumer of the Config Management SIG Ansible bits.

However, Ceph upstream has confirmed:

• 1.9.4 and 2.0.0.1 are 100% compatible
• 2.1 should work (but is quite probably not tested at all)

This raises the following questions:

• would any member of the Config Management SIG be interested in

building and maintaining either 1.9.4 or 2.0.0.1 for the Storage SIG?

• if not, would the Config Management SIG be open to let Storage SIG

members maintain an Ansible 2.0 branch?

Regards, François _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

We are open to cross sig collaboration. We still have to decide which Koji tags we will need for the ansible sig.

Would something like: (build tag) => (destination tag) configmanagement7-ansible-19-el7 => configmanagement7-ansible-19-candidate configmanagement7-ansible-20-el7 => configmanagement7-ansible-20-candidate

with the usual candidate=>testing=>release tags work for you?

Once that is done, we will work on github where any contribution will be welcome.

Noted.

François

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Sven Kieske s.kieske@mittwald.de wrote:

On 11/05/16 08:13, Julien Pivotto wrote:

...

We are open to cross sig collaboration. We still have to decide which Koji tags we will need for the ansible sig. Once that is done, we will work on github where any contribution will be welcome.

did the config management sig suddenly turn into an ansible only sig?

I don't think so.

looking at the suggested tags posted by Francois Cami:

As stated at the beginning of the thread, the Storage SIG needs Ansible. My proposal (which is identical to what is in the wiki) was therefore Ansible-centric.

Do you plan to release different tags for each config management tool?

See "koji tags": https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/ConfigManagementSIG

afaiu there should be one repository containing all cfgmgmt tools, or is this not possible due to different dependencies?

I don't think this is possible nor reasonable. We are aiming to ship multiple versions of some of these tools and having a single repository simply doesn't scale, but that's just my point of view.

Regards, François