On 08/10/2016 08:44 AM, Tomáš Smetana wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:04:33 -0400
Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> At a very high level, this new role strategy could also be tied to the
> modularization strategy. In addition to the platform modules that we will
> produce, we will also produce roles as "content modules" (essentially a
> complete functional implementation of the role as a self-contained add-on).
> Beyond that, we looked at management of those roles and are very keenly
> interested in the idea of building and deploying them through carefully
> curated Ansible playbooks rather than rolekit.
Isn't this a step backwards? I perceive Ansible as yet another variation of
ssh-in-a-for-loop... And I was hoping better system manageability would be
among the Fedora Server goals too. To me that implies new, improved, more
consistent management APIs.
I would very much like to live in a world where we could dictate that, but as
you of all people know, that's not our reality. We attempted to do exactly that
with OpenLMI and it failed. The major reason was of course lack of adoption.
People have tools and techniques that they are used to and getting them to
migrate requires a very compelling story; it requires enough benefits that it
outweighs the significant migration costs.
The reasons for working with Ansible are compelling:
* Many people are already using it and have tools and processes in place for it.
* We have access to expertise to enhance and tweak it to our needs (with the
Red Hat acquisition of Ansible, they are now part of the Fedora community)
* There already exists a community of playbook writers that can help us get up
to speed (Ansible Galaxy)
With this in mind, it really feels like the best way forward *right now*.