Open Stack

 ---- On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:26:31 -0500 Slawek Kaplonski <skaplons at redhat.com> wrote ----
 > Hi,
 > 
 > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 08:53:58AM -0500, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
 > >  ---- On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 06:14:06 -0500 Akihiro Motoki <amotoki at gmail.com> wrote ----
 > >  > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:07 PM Slawek Kaplonski <skaplons at redhat.com> wrote:
 > >  > >
 > >  > > Hi,
 > >  > >
 > >  > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:52:59AM +0200, Herve Beraud wrote:
 > >  > > > Hello,
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > The main question is, does the previous Victoria version [1] will be
 > >  > > > compatible with the latest neutron changes and with the latest engine
 > >  > > > facade introduced during Wallaby?
 > >  > >
 > >  > > It won't be compatible. Networking-midonet from Victoria will not work properly
 > >  > > with Neutron Wallaby.
 > >  > >
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > Releasing an unfixed engine facade code is useless, so we shouldn't release
 > >  > > > a new version of networking-midonet, because the project code won't be
 > >  > > > compatible with the rest of our projects (AFAIK neutron), unless, the
 > >  > > > previous version will not compatible either, and, unless, not releasing a
 > >  > > > Wallaby version leave the project branch uncut and so leave the
 > >  > > > corresponding series unmaintainable, and so unfixable a posteriori.
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > If we do not release a new version then we will use a previous version of
 > >  > > > networking-midonet. This version will be the last Victoria version [1].
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > I suppose that this version (the victoria version) isn't compatible with
 > >  > > > the new facade engine either, isn't it?
 > >  > >
 > >  > > Correct. It's not compatible.
 > >  > >
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > So release or not release a new version won't solve the facade engine
 > >  > > > problem, isn't?
 > >  > >
 > >  > > Yes.
 > >  > >
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > You said that neutron evolved and networking-midonet didn't, hence even if
 > >  > > > we release networking-midonet in the current state it will fail too, isn't
 > >  > > > it?
 > >  > >
 > >  > > Also yes :)
 > >  > >
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > However, releasing a new version and branching on it can give you the
 > >  > > > needed maintenance window to allow you to fix the issue later, when your
 > >  > > > gates will be fixed and then patches backported. git tags are cheap.
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > We should notice that since Victoria some patches have been merged in
 > >  > > > Wallaby so even if they aren't ground breaking changes they are changes
 > >  > > > that it is worth to release.
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > From a release point of view I think it's worth it to release a new version
 > >  > > > and to cut Wallaby. We are close to the it's deadline. That will land the
 > >  > > > available delta between Victoria and Wallaby. That will allow to fix the
 > >  > > > engine facade by opening a maintenance window. If the project is still
 > >  > > > lacking maintainers in a few weeks / months, this will allow a more smooth
 > >  > > > deprecation of this one.
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > Thoughts?
 > >  > >
 > >  > > Based on Your feedback I agree that we should release now what we have. Even if
 > >  > > it's broken we can then fix it and backport fixes to stable/wallaby branch.
 > >  > >
 > >  > > @Akihiro: are You ok with that too?
 > >  > 
 > >  > I was writing another reply and did not notice this mail.
 > >  > While I still have a doubt on releasing the broken code (which we are
 > >  > not sure can be fixed soon or not),
 > >  > I am okay with either decision.
 > > 
 > > Yeah, releasing broken code and especially where we do not if there will be
 > > maintainer to fix it or not seems risky for me too.
 > > 
 > > One option is to deprecate it for wallaby which means follow the deprecation steps
 > > mentioned in project-team-guide[1]. If maintainers show up then it can be un-deprecated. 
 > > With that, we will not have any compatible wallaby version which I think is a better
 > > choice than releasing the broken code.
 > 
 > We were asking about that some time ago already and then some new maintainers
 > stepped in. But as now there is that problem again with networking-midonet I'm
 > fine to deprecate it (or ask about it again at least).
 > But isn't it too late in the cycle now? Last time when we were doing that it was
 > before milestone-2 IIRC. Now we are almost at the end of the cycle. Should we do
 > it still now?

As there is nothing released for Wallaby[1], we can still do this. As per the process, TC
can merge the required patches on that repo if no core is available to +A.

 > If yes, how much time do we really have to e.g. ask for some new maintainers?
 > 

I will say asap :) but I think the release team can set the deadline as they have to take care
of release things.

[1] https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/commit/30492c964f5d7eb85d806086c5b1c656b5c9e9f9/deliverables/wallaby/networking-midonet.yaml


-gmann

 > > 
 > > Releasing the broken code now with the hope of someone will come up and fix it with
 > > backport makes me a little uncomfortable and if it did not get fix then we will live
 > > with broken release forever. 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > [1]https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/repository.html#deprecating-a-repository
 > > 
 > > -gmann
 > > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > >
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > [1]
 > >  > > > https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/branch/master/deliverables/victoria/networking-midonet.yaml
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > Le lun. 29 mars 2021 à 10:32, Slawek Kaplonski <skaplons at redhat.com> a
 > >  > > > écrit :
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > > Hi,
 > >  > > > >
 > >  > > > > We have opened release patch for networking-midonet [1] but our concern
 > >  > > > > about
 > >  > > > > that project is that its gate is completly broken since some time thus we
 > >  > > > > don't really know if the project is still working and valid to be released.
 > >  > > > > In Wallaby cycle Neutron for example finished transition to the engine
 > >  > > > > facade,
 > >  > > > > and patch to adjust that in networking-midonet is still opened [2] (and
 > >  > > > > red as
 > >  > > > > there were some unrelated issues with most of the jobs there).
 > >  > > > >
 > >  > > > > In the past we had discussion about networking-midonet project and it's
 > >  > > > > status
 > >  > > > > as the official Neutron stadium project. Then some new folks stepped in to
 > >  > > > > maintain it but now it seems a bit like (again) it lacks of maintainers.
 > >  > > > > I know that it is very late in the cycle now so my question to the TC and
 > >  > > > > release teams is: should we release stable/wallaby with its current state,
 > >  > > > > even if it's broken or should we maybe don't release it at all until its
 > >  > > > > gate
 > >  > > > > will be up and running?
 > >  > > > >
 > >  > > > > [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781713
 > >  > > > > [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/networking-midonet/+/770797
 > >  > > > >
 > >  > > > > --
 > >  > > > > Slawek Kaplonski
 > >  > > > > Principal Software Engineer
 > >  > > > > Red Hat
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > --
 > >  > > > Hervé Beraud
 > >  > > > Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat
 > >  > > > irc: hberaud
 > >  > > > https://github.com/4383/
 > >  > > > https://twitter.com/4383hberaud
 > >  > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > wsFcBAABCAAQBQJb4AwCCRAHwXRBNkGNegAALSkQAHrotwCiL3VMwDR0vcja10Q+
 > >  > > > Kf31yCutl5bAlS7tOKpPQ9XN4oC0ZSThyNNFVrg8ail0SczHXsC4rOrsPblgGRN+
 > >  > > > RQLoCm2eO1AkB0ubCYLaq0XqSaO+Uk81QxAPkyPCEGT6SRxXr2lhADK0T86kBnMP
 > >  > > > F8RvGolu3EFjlqCVgeOZaR51PqwUlEhZXZuuNKrWZXg/oRiY4811GmnvzmUhgK5G
 > >  > > > 5+f8mUg74hfjDbR2VhjTeaLKp0PhskjOIKY3vqHXofLuaqFDD+WrAy/NgDGvN22g
 > >  > > > glGfj472T3xyHnUzM8ILgAGSghfzZF5Skj2qEeci9cB6K3Hm3osj+PbvfsXE/7Kw
 > >  > > > m/xtm+FjnaywZEv54uCmVIzQsRIm1qJscu20Qw6Q0UiPpDFqD7O6tWSRKdX11UTZ
 > >  > > > hwVQTMh9AKQDBEh2W9nnFi9kzSSNu4OQ1dRMcYHWfd9BEkccezxHwUM4Xyov5Fe0
 > >  > > > qnbfzTB1tYkjU78loMWFaLa00ftSxP/DtQ//iYVyfVNfcCwfDszXLOqlkvGmY1/Y
 > >  > > > F1ON0ONekDZkGJsDoS6QdiUSn8RZ2mHArGEWMV00EV5DCIbCXRvywXV43ckx8Z+3
 > >  > > > B8qUJhBqJ8RS2F+vTs3DTaXqcktgJ4UkhYC2c1gImcPRyGrK9VY0sCT+1iA+wp/O
 > >  > > > v6rDpkeNksZ9fFSyoY2o
 > >  > > > =ECSj
 > >  > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 > >  > >
 > >  > > --
 > >  > > Slawek Kaplonski
 > >  > > Principal Software Engineer
 > >  > > Red Hat
 > >  > 
 > >  > 
 > > 
 > 
 > -- 
 > Slawek Kaplonski
 > Principal Software Engineer
 > Red Hat
 >