February 2022 - openstack-discuss

[ironic][election][ptl] PTL Candidacy for Zed Cycle
by Iury Gregory 15 Feb '22

15 Feb '22

Hello, Ironicers and stackers! I would like to submit my candidacy to continue serving as Ironic PTL for the Zed cycle. In the Yoga cycle, we are adding features to facilitate the cloud operator's life (e.g., Ironic now can calculate the default value for any enabled interface based on the `enabled_hardware_type`, verify steps). We fixed bugs related to SW Raid, virtual media deployments, and many others! Let's continue working together so we can take over the world! =) Best regards, Iury Gregory Melo Ferreira IRC: iurygregory -- *Att[]'sIury Gregory Melo Ferreira * *MSc in Computer Science at UFCG* *Part of the ironic-core and puppet-manager-core team in OpenStack* *Software Engineer at Red Hat Czech* *Social*: https://www.linkedin.com/in/iurygregory *E-mail: iurygregory(a)gmail.com <iurygregory(a)gmail.com>*

1 0

[elections][ptl][masakari]
by Sam Su (苏正伟) 15 Feb '22

15 Feb '22

Hi all, I write to submit my candidacy for the Masakari PTL position during the Z cycle. I took over as Masakari PTL during the Yoga cycle, and would like to serve the community for another cycle. Right now the biggest challenge of the Masakari project is lack of activity. We have been using Masakari in our cloud environment for years, so I want to continue to make some little improvement as feedback. Best regards for you. -suzhengwei

1 0

[election][Sahara]PTL candidacy for Z
by Juntingqiu Qiujunting (邱军婷) 15 Feb '22

15 Feb '22

Hi all: I write to submit my candidacy for the Sahara PTL position during the Z cycle.I have been PTL for the Yoga cycle, and I would like to serve the community for another cycle. In yoga cycle, we have discuss about the plugins are CDH, MapR, Storm, Spark and Vanilla will be removed from Sahara. I will continue this work on Z cycle. And assist the community to resolve some inappropriate issues in Yoga about Sahara project. At present, the Sahara project is not very active, and welcome my dears to actively participate in the construction of the Sahara project in Z cycle. Finally, expect the Sahara project to develop healthily and stably. Best regards for you. Fossen Qiu (fossenqiu) --------------------------------- Fossen Qiu | 邱军婷 CBRD | 云计算与大数据研发部 T: 18249256272 E: qiujunting(a)inspur.com<mailto:qiujunting@inspur.com> 浪潮云海

1 0

[election][puppet] PTL Candidacy for the "Z" release
by Takashi Kajinami 14 Feb '22

14 Feb '22

Hello, I'd like to announce my candidacy for the PTL role in Puppet OpenStack, for the Z release cycle. I've been involved in the project for a few years. I joined the core reviewers of the project in 2020. My contribution started with adding a few parameters but nowdays I'm covering literally all modules to keep these modules consistent with the latest service implementation, as well as helping release management. I'll list up some important items for the upcoming Z-release, which I'd like to prioritize. - Keep our implementation up to date and clean up old items to keep codes as simple as possible. - Extend support for Secure RBAC. We are adding partial support to enforce Secure RBAC in Keystone during Yoga. - Stabilize support for CentOS 9 Stream, which we are adding for Yoga. - Add support for the new Ubuntu LTS. - Improve scenario/component coverage by CI. Finally, as we are currently a small team, we always welcome new contributors, reviewers or whoever interested in helping the project ! Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Takashi

1 0

[election][storlets] PTL Candidacy for the "Z" release
by Takashi Kajinami 14 Feb '22

14 Feb '22

Hi All, I'd like to announce my candidacy for PTL of Storlets for the z release cycle, continuing the role from past several cycles. The biggest change we're expecting for this cycle is removal of Python 2 support, following the same in Swift, which was recently announced[1]. We don't expect any challenges at this moment as Storlets has been fully complatble with Python 3 for several cycles, but the remaining work to clean up items left to keep Python 2 support (Python 2 jobs, for example) is our priority. [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-January/026925.… Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Takashi

1 0

[all][tc] Relmgt team position on release cadence
by Thierry Carrez 14 Feb '22

14 Feb '22

Hi everyone, The (long) document below reflects the current position of the release management team on a popular question: should the OpenStack release cadence be changed? Please note that we only address the release management / stable branch management facet of the problem. There are other dimensions to take into account (governance, feature deprecation, supported distros...) to get a complete view of the debate. Introduction ------------ The subject of how often OpenStack should be released has been regularly debated in the OpenStack community. OpenStack started with a 3-month release cycle, then switched to 6-month release cycle starting with Diablo. It is often thought of a release management decision, but it is actually a much larger topic: a release cadence is a trade-off between pressure to release more often and pressure to release less often, coming in from a lot of different stakeholders. In OpenStack, it is ultimately a Technical Committee decision. But that decision is informed by the position of a number of stakeholders. This document gives historical context and describes the current release management team position. The current trade-off --------------------- The main pressure to release more often is to make features available to users faster. Developers get a faster feedback loop, hardware vendors ensure software is compatible with their latest products, and users get exciting new features. "Release early, release often" is a best practice in our industry -- we should generally aim at releasing as often as possible. But that is counterbalanced by pressure to release less often. From a development perspective, each release cycle comes with some process overhead. On the integrators side, a new release means packaging and validation work. On the users side, it means pressure to upgrade. To justify that cost, there needs to be enough user-visible benefit (like new features) in a given release. For the last 10 years for OpenStack, that balance has been around six months. Six months let us accumulate enough new development that it was worth upgrading to / integrating the new version, while giving enough time to actually do the work. It also aligned well with Foundation events cadence, allowing to synchronize in-person developer meetings date with start of cycles. What changed ------------ The major recent change affecting this trade-off is that the pace of new development in OpenStack slowed down. The rhythm of changes was divided by 3 between 2015 and 2021, reflecting that OpenStack is now a mature and stable solution, where accessing the latest features is no longer a major driver. That reduces some of the pressure for releasing more often. At the same time, we have more users every day, with larger and larger deployments, and keeping those clusters constantly up to date is an operational challenge. That increases the pressure to release less often. In essence, OpenStack is becoming much more like a LTS distribution than a web browser -- something users like moving slow. Over the past years, project teams also increasingly decoupled individual components from the "coordinated release". More and more components opted for an independent or intermediary-released model, where they can put out releases in the middle of a cycle, making new features available to their users. This increasingly opens up the possibility of a longer "coordinated release" which would still allow development teams to follow "release early, release often" best practices. All that recent evolution means it is (again) time to reconsider if the 6-month cadence is what serves our community best, and in particular if a longer release cadence would not suit us better. The release management team position on the debate -------------------------------------------------- While releasing less often would definitely reduce the load on the release management team, most of the team work being automated, we do not think it should be a major factor in motivating the decision. We should not adjust the cadence too often though, as there is a one-time cost in switching our processes. In terms of impact, we expect that a switch to a longer cycle will encourage more project teams to adopt a "with-intermediary" release model (rather than the traditional "with-rc" single release per cycle), which may lead to abandoning the latter, hence simplifying our processes. Longer cycles might also discourage people to commit to PTL or release liaison work. We'd probably need to manage expectations there, and encourage more frequent switches (or create alternate models). If the decision is made to switch to a longer cycle, the release management team recommends to switch to one year directly. That would avoid changing it again anytime soon, and synchronizing on a calendar year is much simpler to follow and communicate. We also recommend announcing the change well in advance. We currently have an opportunity of making the switch when we reach the end of the release naming alphabet, which would also greatly simplify the communications around the change. Finally, it is worth mentioning the impact on the stable branch work. Releasing less often would likely impact the number of stable branches that we keep on maintaining, so that we do not go too much in the past (and hit unmaintained distributions or long-gone dependencies). We currently maintain releases for 18 months before they switch to extended maintenance, which results in between 3 and 4 releases being maintained at the same time. We'd recommend switching to maintaining one-year releases for 24 months, which would result in between 2 and 3 releases being maintained at the same time. Such a change would lead to longer maintenance for our users while reducing backporting work for our developers. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) On behalf of the OpenStack Release Management team

15 45

[election][tc] Candidacy for TC for Z
by Nikolla, Kristi 14 Feb '22

14 Feb '22

Hi all, I am announcing my candidacy for a position on the OpenStack Technical Committee. I'm a software engineer at the Mass Open Cloud[0], and the New England Research Cloud[1], two initiatives from major universities in the Boston area to create and operate public and open clouds that can federated and replicated. I've been involved with OpenStack for the past 7 years as a user, operator, and developer. This is not my first time running, I have previously served on the Technical Committee[2] and as Keystone PTL for 1 year during the Victoria and Wallaby cycles[3][4]. I am passionate about open source and governance and keeping the community healthy. My focus will be in facilitating the discussions that need to happen, whether they are internal to a team, between project teams, or between OpenStack and other projects. Please allow me once again the honor of representing you, and the opportunity to continue contributing to the community that I owe so much to and want to see flourish. I look forward to hopefully seeing you all very soon! Thank you for your time and consideration, Kristi Nikolla (he/him) [0]. https://massopen.cloud [1]. https://nerc.mghpcc.org [2]. https://opendev.org/openstack/election/raw/branch/master/candidates/victori… [3]. https://opendev.org/openstack/election/raw/branch/master/candidates/victori… [4]. https://opendev.org/openstack/election/raw/branch/master/candidates/wallaby…

1 0

[puppet][tc] Propose changing the release model to cycle-with-rc
by Takashi Kajinami 14 Feb '22

14 Feb '22

Hello, I already discussed this with a few cores last year but I'm raising this topic in ML to make an official decision. Currently Puppet OpenStack is following cycle-with-intermediary and creates a release every milestone. However our code is tightly related to the actual service implementations and having only puppet releases is not very useful. Considering the above point, and effort required to cut off releases per milestone, I'll propose changing our release model to cycle-with-rc , and creating a single release. Because we already created milestone releases for Yoga, I'm thinking of applying the change from next cycle(Z). Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thank you, Takashi

5 5

[blazar][election][ptl] PTL candidacy for Z
by Pierre Riteau 14 Feb '22

14 Feb '22

Hi, I would like to self-nominate for the role of PTL of Blazar for the Z release cycle. I have been PTL since the Stein cycle and I am willing to continue in this role. We have experienced an uptick in contributions during the Yoga cycle, merging some long-awaited features such as a calendar view in the dashboard or initial support for preemptible instances. I would like to keep this momentum going, improving Blazar for its existing users and plugging gaps preventing it from getting adopted by more deployments. Thank you for your support, Pierre Riteau (priteau)

1 0

[election][Designate][ptl] My candidacy for the "Z" release
by Michael Johnson 14 Feb '22

14 Feb '22

Hello OpenStack community, I would like to announce my candidacy for PTL of Designate for the "Z" cycle. I would like to continue to support the Designate team for the "Z" release. We have made good progress improving the Designate tempest tests and documentation, but we have more work to do. The team has also been focusing on cleaning up some of the accumulated technical debt, which I expect will continue into the "Z" cycle. Thank you for your support and your consideration for "Z", Michael Johnson (johnsom)

1 0