Overall, I’m happy with our three days of hacking on Crowbar 2. We’ve reached the critical “deploys workload” milestone and I’m excited about well the design is working and how clearly we’ve been able to articulate our approach in code & UI.
Of course, it’s worth noting again that Crowbar 1 has also had significant progress on OpenStack Havana workloads running on Ubuntu, Centos/RHEL, and SUSE/SLES
Here are the focus items from the hack:
- Documentation – cleaned up documentation specifically by updating the README in all the projects to point to the real documentation in an effort to help people find useful information faster. Reminder: if unsure, put documentation in barclamp-crowbar/doc!
- Docker Integration for Crowbar 2 progress. You can now install Docker from internal packages on an admin node. We have a strategy for allowing containers be workload nodes.
- Ceph installed as workload is working. This workload revealed the need for UI improvements and additional flags for roles (hello “cluster”)
- Progress on OpenSUSE and Fedora as Crowbar 2 install targets. This gets us closer to true multi-O/S support.
- OpenSUSE 13.1 setup as a dev environment including tests. This is a target working environment.
- Being 12 hours offset from the US really impacted remote participation.
One thing that became obvious during the hack is that we’ve reached a point in Crowbar 2 development where it makes sense to move the work into distinct repositories. There are build, organization and packaging changes that would simplify Crowbar 2 and make it easier to start using; however, we’ve been trying to maintain backwards compatibility with Crowbar 1. This is becoming impossible; consequently, it appears time to split them. Here are some items for consideration:
- Crowbar 2 could collect barclamps into larger “workload” repos so there would be far fewer repos (although possibly still barclamps within a workload). For example, there would be a “core” set that includes all the current CB2 barclamps. OpenStack, Ceph and Hadoop would be their own sets.
- Crowbar 2 would have a clearly named “build” or “tools” repo instead of having it called “crowbar”
- Crowbar 2 framework would be either part of “core” or called “framework”
- We would put these in a new organization (“Crowbar2″ or “Crowbar-2″) so that the clutter of Crowbar’s current organization is avoided.
While we clearly need to break apart the repo, this suggestion needs community more discussion!