Open Stack

On 07/15/2015 12:37 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 09:14 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 07/14/2015 10:29 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>>> On 07/14/2015 12:33 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>>> I missed this announce...
>>>
>>>> On 07/02/2015 05:32 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>>>> Per the Icehouse EOL discussion[1] last month, now that the 
>>>>> final 2014.1.5 release[2] is behind us I have followed our
>>>>> usual end of life steps for stable/icehouse branches on repos
>>>>> under the control of the OpenStack Release Cycle Management
>>>>> project-team. Specifically, for any repos with the
>>>>> release:managed[3] tag, icehouse-specific test jobs were
>>>>> removed from our CI system and all open change reviews were
>>>>> abandoned for stable/icehouse. Then the final states of the
>>>>> branches were tagged as "icehouse-eol" and the branches
>>>>> subsequently deleted.
>>>
>>>> I believe I asked you about 10 times to keep these branches
>>>> alive, so that distributions could work together on a longer
>>>> support, even without a CI behind it.
>>>
>>>> I have also asked for a private gerrit for maintaining the 
>>>> Icehouse patches after EOL.
>>>
>>>> While I understand the later means some significant work, I
>>>> don't understand why you have deleted the Icehouse branches.
>>>
>>>> Effectively, under these conditions, I am giving up doing any
>>>> kind of coordination between distros for security patches of
>>>> Icehouse. :(
>>>
>>> As far as I know, there was no real coordination on those
>>> patches before, neither I saw any real steps from any side to get
>>> it up.
> 
>> Well... as far as I know, you were not there during the
>> conversations we had at the summits about this. Neither you are on
>> my list of Icehouse security persons. So I fail to see how you
>> could be in the loop for this indeed.
> 
> 
> Indeed, in Openstack, people work in public, and publish details about
> their (private?) talks on summits on the mailing list. This is the
> place where decisions are made, not summits, and it's a pity that some
> people see chats on summits as something defining the future.

I do understand that not writing about it on the list (or anything else
which everyone could read) was my mistake. It wont happen twice, I swear.

> If you don't think I (a member of stable-maint-core) should have been
> in the loop, fine for me.

I regret you haven't been in the loop indeed.

>>> That said, anyone can come up with an initiative to maintain
>>> those branches under some 3party roof (just push -eol tag into
>>> github and advertise), and if there is real (and not just
>>> anticipated) collaboration going on around it, then the project
>>> may reconsider getting it back in the big stadium.
> 
>> I have a list of contacts for each and every downstream
>> distributions.
> 
> Whom have you contacted on RDO side? Just curious.

I personally know Haikel Gemmar, Alan Pevec and Mathias Grunge. Alan
Pevec was (is?) my contact here.

> I am not sure RDO would be interested in consuming pieces of unclear
> quality (no CI) thru rebase only to realize that half of those are not
> valid. I would not dare to lower quality of 'after-eol' releases of
> RDO by rebasing on top of unvalidated patches.

What we discussed was that distributions would run their own CI and
validate patches away from upstream CI, then we would agree on a patch
and share it.

If you see a better way to work out things, I'd be happy to define a new
procedure.

Now, about maintenance of the stable CI, I really would like to have
enough time to participate maintaining it. Just like *many* other things
for which I don't have time. :(

Hopefully, starting with Liberty, I wont be the only one doing the
packaging work in Debian, and I'll have more time for other things.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)