Open Stack

 ---- On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 02:52:43 -0700  Takashi Kajinami  wrote --- 
 > 
 > > > > For the Windows feature other than os-win dependencies, it is up to the projects, and if they can still
 > > > > support and test those without 3rd party CI, then it is okay to keep it. This applies to any other distro-specific
 > > > > features also where they might be supported by a few projects but not all. But they should go through the
 > > > > deprecation phase warning even they are not tested so that users get the notification. 
 > > > > 
 > I'm worried about "might be supported by a few projects" approach here, because that would eventuallyblock deprecating/removing Windows support from oslo. We now have some features like eventlog[1] orsome logics to support Windows[2]. Should we keep these until all projects declare deprecation and removalof Windows support ? Based on my past experiences, some of our projects have been inactive for a whileand haven't been aligned with this kind of global changes being made. So I feel like this would eventuallymean we can't remove these implementations from oslo really.

Honestlysaying , removing it from oslo at the end is the best approach. We can see if any project not active
or even do not know about their windows support then we can discuss with them otherwise let's project
deprecate and remove the things first and then from lib.

 > I'd rather prefer seeing common agreement across all projects, and set the expected timeline so that we candrop unmaintained codes.
 > 
 > [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.log/+/894235[2] https://github.com/openstack/oslo.concurrency/blob/master/oslo_concurrency/processutils.py#L46-L53
 > > > my goal in this regard would be to land the removal of both the hyperv and vmware driver before milestone one
 > > > and perhaps even before the ptg if there is no object to it in our irc team meeting.(this is off topic)I'm wondering if removal of vmware drivers means that we should consider deprecating and removing vmware driversin glance and cinder, as these drivers are meant to be used with vmware virt drivers.
 > > What you just said. IIRC, we kinda agreed on the PTG to try to avoid as much as possible any deprecations during> the 2023.2 Bobcat release, which is a non-SLURP release, as it would be skipped by operators fast-jumping to 2024.1,> unless someone would forward-port the deprecation note to Caracal, hence putting the burden on someone's shoulder.My understanding was that we can deprecate features at 2023.2, as long as we don't remove these at 2024.1, 
 > (removal should be done at 2024.2 or later), though I agree that deprecating features at 2023.2 are not muchuseful because the removal timeline can't be changed even if we deprecate features "early".

Yes, basic idea is to have deprecation warning for at least one SLURP release. If any project deprecating it
in 2023.2 then they need to wait till 2024.1 release for removal. For example, Nova deprecated Hyper-V driver
in 2023.1 (SLURP release) and should be good to remove it in next SLURP release which will be next cycle 2024.1

-gmann


 > 
 > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 6:35 PM Sylvain Bauza sylvain.bauza at gmail.com> wrote:
 > 
 > 
 > Le lun. 11 sept. 2023 à 11:03, smooney at redhat.com> a écrit :
 > On Sun, 2023-09-10 at 20:03 -0700, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
 > >  ---- On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 05:19:13 -0700  Takashi Kajinami  wrote --- 
 > >  > Let me bump this old thread because we still need some follow-up about the retirement of os-win.
 > >  > I noticed that some projects have not yet deprecated the implementations dependent on os-win.I submitted a few
 > > patches to make these implementations deprecated so that we can smoothly remove thesein the
 > > future. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/894237 
 > > https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/894236 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ceilometer/+/894296It'd 
 > > be nice if the relevant teams can review these.
 > >  > 
 > >  > My remaining question is whether we should mark all implementations for Windows support, which are not
 > > directlydependent on os-win[1]. Technically we can go through individual projects and add warning logs and release
 > > notesabout the deprecation. However I'm not too sure if that's worth the effort. If we can agree that we remove
 > > supportfor running OpenStack on Windows Operating System at a specific release, then I tend to leave the ones
 > > independentfrom os-win, unless it has any impact on user-facing items like config options[1].
 > >  > I'd like to hear any thoughts about this plan, as well as any target release to remove Windows "host" support
 > > globallyfrom OpenStack (maybe after 2024.1 release ?).
 > > 
 > > Thanks for marking a few of the Windows support things as deprecated. This is the right direction for at least where
 > > it
 > > depends on os-win. I have started completing the os-win retirement and deps[1]. But we need to add a deprecation
 > > warning in one cycle and then remove it in a later one (like you are doing in the mentioned changes). We did the
 > > same in the Nova Hyper-V driver, which was marked deprecated in the 2023.1 cycles, and I am proposing it to be
 > > removed in the next cycle, 2024.1[2].
 > you bet me too it
 > there are already two other nova cores (myself and one other) that also planned to do this after confirming with the
 > wider team at the next ptg so this is highly likely to proceed early in the 2024.1 cycle.
 > my goal in this regard would be to land the removal of both the hyperv and vmware driver before milestone one
 > and perhaps even before the ptg if there is no object to it in our irc team meeting.
 > 
 > i was waiting for RC-1 to be cut and the dust to settle before brign this up to discuss but it seams at least 3 fo the
 > nova core team feel this is thr correct direction to take now.
 > 
 > 
 > What you just said. IIRC, we kinda agreed on the PTG to try to avoid as much as possible any deprecations during the 2023.2 Bobcat release, which is a non-SLURP release, as it would be skipped by operators fast-jumping to 2024.1, unless someone would forward-port the deprecation note to Caracal, hence putting the burden on someone's shoulder.
 > Reinstanting my personal take then, which is, as a Nova PTL, I'm not 100% happy with taking my burden.Please, please, let's wait for 4 days and nothing or nooone will then get hurt :-) 
 > > 
 > > For the Windows feature other than os-win dependencies, it is up to the projects, and if they can still
 > > support and test those without 3rd party CI, then it is okay to keep it. This applies to any other distro-specific
 > > features also where they might be supported by a few projects but not all. But they should go through the
 > > deprecation phase warning even they are not tested so that users get the notification. 
 > > 
 > > [1] https://review.opendev.org/q/+topic:retire-winstackers
 > > [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/894466
 > > 
 > > -gmann
 > > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > [1] Some
 > > examples https://github.com/openstack/ceilometer/blob/d31d4ed3574a5d19fe4b09ab2c227dba64da170a/ceilometer/cmd/polling.
 > > py#L95-L96 https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/virt/disk/api.py#L624-L625
 > >  > [2] event_log option in oslo.log is one good example https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.log/+/894235
 > >  > On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 7:50 AM Ghanshyam Mann gmann at ghanshyammann.com> wrote:
 > >  > As there is no volunteer to maintain this project, I have proposed the retirement
 > >  > 
 > >  > - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/886880
 > >  > 
 > >  > -gmann
 > >  > 
 > >  >  ---- On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 07:54:12 -0700  James Page  wrote --- 
 > >  >  > Hi All
 > >  >  > 
 > >  >  > As announced by Lucian last November (see [0]) Cloudbase Solutions are no longer in a position to maintain
 > > support for running OpenStack on Windows and have also ceased operation of their 3rd party CI for the windows support
 > > across a number of OpenStack projects.
 > >  >  > This situation has resulted in the Winstackers project becoming PTL-less for the 2023.2 cycle with no volunteers
 > > responding to the TC's call to fill this role and take this feature in OpenStack forward (see [1]).
 > >  >  > This is the final call for any maintainers to step forward if this feature is important to them in OpenStack.
 > >  >  > The last user survey in 2022 indicated that 2% of respondents were running on Hyper-V so this might be important
 > > enough to warrant a commitment from someone operating OpenStack on Windows to maintain these features going forward.
 > >  >  > Here is a reminder from Lucian's original email on the full list of projects which are impacted in some way: *
 > > nova hyper-v driver - in-tree plus out-of-tree compute-hyperv driver* os-win - common Windows library for Openstack*
 > > neutron hyperv ml2 plugin and agent* ovs on Windows and neutron ovs agent support* cinder drivers - SMB and Windows
 > > iSCSI* os-brick Windows connectors - iSCSI, FC, SMB, RBD* ceilometer Windows poller* manila Windows driver* glance
 > > Windows support* freerdp gateway
 > >  >  > The lack of 3rd party CI for testing all of this really needs to be addressed as well.
 > >  >  > If no maintainers are forthcoming between now and the next PTG in June the TC will need to officially retire the
 > > project and start the process of removing support for Windows across the various projects that support this operating
 > > system in some way - either directly or through the use of os-win.
 > >  >  > For clarity this call refers to the use of the Hyper-V virtualisation driver and associated Windows server
 > > components to provide WIndows based OpenStack Hypervisors and does not relate to the ability to run Windows images as
 > > guests on OpenStack.
 > >  >  > Regards
 > >  >  > James
 > >  >  >
 > > [0] https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-November/031044.html[1] https://lists.openstack.org/p
 > > ipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-March/032888.html
 > >  > 
 > >  > 
 > > 
 > 
 > 
 >