Open Stack

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 2:24 PM Dmitriy Rabotyagov <noonedeadpunk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sorry, these 2 statements sound quite contradictory to me, as keeping
> branch in EM and EOLing them are 2 different things.
>
> According to the meeting logs I assume you wanted to say that there were
> no objections to EOL branches / no reasons provided to keep them in EM?
>
>
Yes, correct.
Sorry for phrasing it in a wrong/confusing way. Cinder team doesn't want to
keep rocky and stein branches in EM anymore and is ready to EOL them.

Thanks
Rajat Dhasmana


> чт, 2 февр. 2023 г., 19:01 Rajat Dhasmana <rdhasman at redhat.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Updating cinder status here.
>> We discussed this in the cinder meeting yesterday[1] and there were no
>> objections from the team to keep rocky and stein branches in EM.
>> So cinder is +1 on moving rocky and stein branches to EOL.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meetings.opendev.org/irclogs/%23openstack-meeting-alt/%23openstack-meeting-alt.2023-02-01.log.html#t2023-02-01T14:42:34
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rajat Dhasmana
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:18 AM Rajat Dhasmana <rdhasman at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Elod,
>>>
>>> The last commits done in rocky[1] and stein[2] were on Sep 17, 2021.
>>> Since then we also discovered that one of the job
>>> definition, nova-multiattach[3] was removed in nova rocky release and since
>>> nova EOLed their rocky branch[4], that job is breaking (although I haven't
>>> confirmed with WIP patches but the last commit in September 2021 passed
>>> that job[5] and the gate breaking was noticed recently with change[6]).
>>>
>>> We will discuss this in the cinder upstream meeting this week and will
>>> update this thread but I'm currently in favor of moving cinder rocky and
>>> stein branches to EOL.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/commit/cdcf7b5f8b3c850555942f422b8ad1f43e21fe7b
>>> [2]
>>> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/commit/667c6da08d423888f1df85d639fef058553f6169
>>> [3]
>>> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/stable/rocky/.zuul.yaml#L153
>>> [4] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/862520
>>> [5]
>>> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/809657/1#message-50e6adf07ba3883a74f6e9939d34f0f0f0fe8d7a
>>> [6]
>>> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/871799/3#message-439428e2a146adc233e1a894a7a85004f3f920e4
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Rajat Dhasmana
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:38 PM Elõd Illés <elod.illes at est.tech> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Similarly like the Queens branch EOL proposal [1] I would like to
>>>> propose
>>>> to transition every project's stable/rocky to End of Life:
>>>>
>>>> - gates are mostly broken
>>>> - minimal number of activity can be seen on this branch
>>>> - some core projects already transitioned their stable/rocky to EOL
>>>>   recently (like ironic, neutron, nova)
>>>> - gate job definitions are still using the old, legacy zuul syntax
>>>> - gate jobs are based on Ubuntu Xenial, which is also beyond its public
>>>>   maintenance window date and hard to maintain
>>>>
>>>> Based on the above, if there won't be any project who wants to keep open
>>>> their stable/rocky, then I'll start the process of EOL'ing Rocky stable
>>>> series as a whole. If anyone has any objection then please respond to
>>>> this mail.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Előd Illés
>>>> irc: elodilles @ #openstack-stable / #openstack-release
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-October/031030.html
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20230203/589b3514/attachment.htm>