Open Stack

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 2:56 PM Brian Rosmaita <rosmaita.fossdev at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Here's an update on how this issue is shaping up.
>
> As a reminder, the issue is that the Cinder project team has proposed to
> EOL and delete all current EM branches (that is, stable/train through
> stable/xena) due to the complexity of coordinating a fix for
> CVE-2023-2088 across all affected projects in the EM branches.  Given
> the badness of CVE-2023-2088, the team did not want any unfixed branches
> sitting around for people to use.
>
> In the meantime, there has been a Forum session at the recent OpenInfra
> Summit and ongoing discussion in the TC culminating in the following
> proposal that I believe is coming close to agreement:
>
> "Unmaintained status replaces Extended Maintenance"
> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/888771
>
>
For clarity, will this new model affect all the OpenStack projects or is it
an alternative to the current EM model based on each project election?

Best regards,

Alfredo



> Here's my understanding of how the new Unmaintained status (and its
> transition plan) impacts the Cinder team's proposal to EOL all the EM
> branches.
>
> 1. stable/train and stable/ussuri can be tagged EOL and deleted.  (For
> cinder, at least, stein and older are already EOL.)
>
> 2. stable/victoria, stable/wallaby, and stable/xena will immediately
> transition from EM to Unmaintained status.  This means that the Cinder
> project team has *no obligations* with respect to maintaining these
> branches or their gates.  (Technically, we never did, but now it will be
> completely clear.)  The branches will be renamed to
> unmaintained/victoria, unmaintained/wallaby, and unmaintained/xena to
> make their Unmaintained status unmistakable.
>
> The maintenance of the Unmaintained branches will fall to a
> cinder-unmaintained-core team, whose exact composition is still under
> discussion on [0], but which will be completely separate from the
> cinder-core and cinder-stable-maint teams.  The cinder-core and
> cinder-stable-maint members have no obligation to participate in
> cinder-unmaintained-core (though they can if they want to).
>
> 3. The existence and ultimate EOL and deletion of
> unmaintained/{victoria,wallaby,xena} will follow the Unmaintained branch
> policy.  A sketch of what this means over the next few cycles is mapped
> out in this etherpad:
>    https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/24gf87QcmV6xF4StbLQx
>
> This email you are reading right now only concerns the way the new
> Unmaintained status proposal affects the Cinder project's plans with
> respect to the current Extended Maintenance branches.  I encourage
> everyone to read the full proposal [0] to understand how Unmaintained
> status will be applied across all projects going forward.
>
> My personal opinion is that Unmaintained status and its transition plan
> addresses the concerns of the Cinder project team with respect to the
> current EM branches; the Cinder team will decide the team's position on
> this issue at today's weekly meeting (1400 UTC) [1].
>
>
> cheers,
> brian
>
>
> [0] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/888771
> [1] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-bobcat-meetings
>
>
> On 7/6/23 2:01 PM, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
> > On 7/6/23 1:05 PM, Nikolla, Kristi wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> As a courtesy to allow the TC to provide a resolution with coordinated
> >> guidelines for EOL-ing branches across projects, we please ask that
> >> you wait until the end of July at the latest.
> > [snip]
> >
> > This seems reasonable to me.  The Cinder project has announced its
> > intentions, namely, that we will not fix the gates for any of the
> > branches currently in EM, and that the EOL tags will (eventually) be
> > made at the hashes indicated in the proposed release patches:
> >
> > https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:cinder-eol-june2023
> >
> > If anyone in the wider OpenStack Community has a desire to have
> > backports merged into these branches, or to keep these branches open
> > longer, now would be a good time to step up and do all appropriate work
> > to make that happen.
> >
> > cheers,
> > brian
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20230726/6a2db4f0/attachment.htm>