March 2023 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[ironic] ARM Support in CI: Call for vendors / contributors / interested parties
by Jay Faulkner 14 Jun '23

14 Jun '23

Hi stackers, Ironic has published an experimental Ironic Python Agent image for ARM64 ( https://tarballs.opendev.org/openstack/ironic-python-agent-builder/dib/file…) and discussed promoting this image to supported via CI testing. However, we have a problem: there are no Ironic developers with easy access to ARM hardware at the moment, and no Ironic developers with free time to commit to improving our support of ARM hardware. So we're putting out a call for help: - If you're a hardware vendor and want your ARM hardware supported? Please come talk to the Ironic community about setting up third-party-CI. - Are you an operator or contributor from a company invested in ARM bare metal? Please come join the Ironic community to help us build this support. Thanks, Jay Faulkner Ironic PTL

6 11

[storlets] Proposal to make Train/Ussuri/Victoria EOL
by Takashi Kajinami 13 Jun '23

13 Jun '23

Hello, Currently we have multiple stable branches open but we haven't seen any backport proposed so far. To reduce number of branches we have to maintain, I'd like to propose retiring old stable branches(train, ussuri and victoria). In case you have any concerns, please let me know. Thank you, Takashi Kajinami

1 1

Kubernetes Conformance 1.24 + 1.25
by Kendall Nelson 05 Jun '23

05 Jun '23

Hello All! First of all, I want to say a huge thanks to Guilherme Steinmuller for all his help ensuring that OpenStack Magnum remains Kubernetes Certified [1]! We are certified for v1.24! However, in digging into the set of conformance tests this round, it appears that we will not be able to get 1.25 certified with the current Magnum. This means that in May when we have to re-cert (every 3 months they reach an EOL because that's k8s release cadence) we will not be able to maintain this which is the other part of why I wanted to write this email - to raise awareness and ask for help digging into what needs to happen to make sure we can retain this. Tangentially related, Guilherme has posted a patch with documentation for how to run the conformance tests for yourself and it could use some reviews [2]. And one last thing, I have begun conversation with the opendev folks about what it might take to setup jobs to run the conformance tests periodically so that we don't have to manually run them when it's time to recert. I am planning on submitting a forum topic for this for those interested :) Long live LOKI! - Kendall Nelson [1] https://github.com/cncf/k8s-conformance/pull/2446 [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/magnum/+/849156

5 10

[ironic][stable] Proposing EOL of ironic project branches older than Wallaby
by Jay Faulkner 01 Jun '23

01 Jun '23

Hi all, Ironic has a large amount of stable branches still in EM. We need to take action to ensure those branches are either retired or have CI repaired to the point of being usable. Specifically, I'm looking at these branches across all Ironic projects: - stable/queens - stable/rocky - stable/stein - stable/train - stable/ussuri - stable/victoria In lieu of any volunteers to maintain the CI, my recommendation for all the branches listed above is that they be marked EOL. If someone wants to volunteer to maintain CI for those branches, they can propose one of the below paths be taken instead: 1 - Someone volunteers to maintain these branches, and also report the status of CI of these older branches periodically on the Ironic whiteboard and in Ironic meetings. If you feel strongly that one of these branches needs to continue to be in service; volunteering in this way is how to save them. 2 - We seriously reduce CI. Basically removing all tempest tests to ensure that CI remains reliable and able to merge emergency or security fixes when needed. In some cases; this still requires CI fixes as some older inspector branches are failing *installing packages* in unit tests. I would still like, in this case, that someone volunteers to ensure the minimalist CI remains happy. My intention is to let this message serve as notice and a waiting period; and if I've not heard any response here or in Monday's Ironic meeting (in 6 days), I will begin taking action on retiring these branches. This is simply a start; other branches (including bugfix branches) are also in bad shape in CI, but getting these retired will significantly reduce the surface area of projects and branches to evaluate. I know it's painful to drop support for these branches; but we've provided good EM support for these branches for a long time and by pruning them away, we'll be able to save time to dedicate to other items. Thanks, Jay Faulkner

3 5

[neutron] Deprecate networking-odl project
by Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez 24 May '23

24 May '23

Hello all: During the last releases, the support for "networking-odl" project has decreased. Currently there is no active developer or maintainer in the community. This project depends on https://www.opendaylight.org/; the latest version released is Sulfur (16) while the version still used in the CI is Sodium (11) [1]. I would like first to make a call for developers to update this project. But if this is not possible, I will then start the procedure to deprecate it [2] (**not to retire it**). Regards. [1] https://github.com/openstack/networking-odl/blob/db5c79b3ee5054feb8a17df130… [2] https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/repository.html#deprecating-a…

3 3

[heat][magnum][tacker] Future of SoftwareDeployment support
by Takashi Kajinami 10 May '23

10 May '23

Hello, We discussed this briefly in the past thread where we discussed maintenance of os-*-agent repos, and also talked about this topic during Heat PTG, but I'd like to formalize the discussion to get a clear agreement. Heat has been supporting SoftwareDeployment resources to configure software in instances using some agents such as os-collect-config[1]. [1] https://docs.openstack.org/heat/latest/template_guide/software_deployment.h… This feature was initially developed to be used by TripleO (IIUC), but TripleO is retired now and we are losing the first motivation to maintain the feature. # Even TripleO replaced most of its usage of softwaredeployment by config-download lately. Because the heat project team has drunk dramatically recently, we'd like to put more focus on core features. For that aim we are now wondering if we can deprecate and remove this feature, and would like to hear from anyone who has any concerns about this. Quickly looking through the repos, it seems currently Magnum and Tacker are using SoftwareDeployment, and it'd be nice especially if we can understand their current requirements. 1. Magnum It seems SoftwareDeployment is used by k8s_fedora_atomic_v1 driver but I'm not too sure whether this driver is still supported, because Fedora Atomic was EOLed a while ago, right ? 2. Tacker SoftwareDeployment can be found in only test code in the tacker repo. We have some references kept in heat-translator which look related to TOSCA templates. Thank you, Takashi Kajinami

4 8

[horizon][nova][masakari] Instances created with "Any AZ" problem
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 02 May '23

02 May '23

Hello guys. I playing with Nova AZ and Masakari https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/availability-zones.html Masakari will move server by nova scheduler. Openstack Docs describe that: If the server was not created in a specific zone then it is free to be moved to other zones, i.e. the AvailabilityZoneFilter <https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/scheduling.html#availabilityzo…> is a no-op. I see that everyone usually creates instances with "Any Availability Zone" on Horzion and also we don't specify AZ when creating instances by cli. By this way, when we use Masakari or we miragrated instances( or evacuate) so our instance will be moved to other zones. Can we attach AZ to server create requests API based on Any Availability Zone to limit instances moved to other zones? Thank you. Regards Nguyen Huu Khoi

5 20

[magnum] Propose deprecation of Docker Swarm, CoreOS, fedora-ironic
by Jake Yip 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

Hi, Due to limited resources, Magnum team has decided to put most effort into supporting the most popular use case - Kubernetes on Fedora CoreOS. In light of that, we are seeking maintainers for the less well maintained drivers / COE - Docker Swarm, CoreOS and fedora-ironic drivers. The reasons are as follows: - Docker Swarm - It uses Fedora Atomic which has been EOL [1] - CoreOS - It is EOL [2] - fedora-ironic - Not tested, unsure if it is still working If anyone wants to take up maintenance of any of the above, we will be glad. Please let us know either through the ML or at the Magnum meetings. If there are no suitable maintainers, we will start the deprecation of these before end of Antelope. Regards, Jake [1]: https://projectatomic.io/blog/2019/11/fedora-atomic-host-nearing-eol/ [2]: https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/cloud-computing/openshift/what-was-c… -- Jake Yip Magnum Team

2 3

[Horizon]: allow user to access calendar on horizon
by James Leong 18 Apr '23

18 Apr '23

Hi all, I am using kolla-ansible for OpenStack deployment in the yoga version. Is it possible to allow the user (member role) to view the calendar graph under the reservation tab (lease)? Currently, only the admin will be able to view the calendar graph with all the reserved leases. However, a user with other roles cannot load the calendar information. On the dashboard, I saw it displayed " Unable to load reservations." When I look into the log file, I get the below error message. "blazarclient.exception.BlazarClientException: ERROR: Policy doesn't allow blazar:oshosts:get to be performed." Is there a way to allow the policy? Thanks for your help. James

2 2

Re: [all][stable][ptl] Propose to EOL Rocky series
by Elõd Illés 17 Apr '23

17 Apr '23

Hi, thanks for all the feedbacks from teams so far! @Zigo: Extended Maintenance process was created just for the same situation: to give space to interested parties to cooperate and keep things maintained even when stable releases are over their 'supported' lifetime. So it's good to see that there is interest in it! Unfortunately, with very old branches we've reached the state where gates can't be maintained and without a functional gate it's not safe to merge patches (yes, even security fixes) and they are just using resources (CI & maintainers' time). When gate is broken in such extent, then i think the community have to accept that it is not possible to merge patches confidently and needs to EOL that release. (Yes, it means that some vendors still have to do it for their own sake, testing it by their own, etc). Keeping things open in such state gives the false signal to vendors that 'it is maintained' however this is done without fully testing the changes. Another aspect is that code cannot be cleaned up until those old branches are still present (CI jobs, project configurations, etc) which gives pain for developers. So, however some vendors would appreciate probably to keep things open forever, for the community this is not beneficial and doable I think. Seeing that teams want to EOL their old branches is a proof that this is needed (unfortunately). Thanks, Előd Illés irc: elodilles @ #openstack-stable / #openstack-release ________________________________ From: Thomas Goirand <thomas(a)goirand.fr> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 2:25 PM Cc: openstack-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org <openstack-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [all][stable][ptl] Propose to EOL Rocky series Hi, I understand the gate is broken, however, Rocky is in Debian LTS, and I would like to keep the possibility to merge patches, even with the gate tests disabled. CVE-2022-47951 is an example why this is important... Thomas Goirand (zigo) On Jan 28, 2023 11:54, Radosław Piliszek <radoslaw.piliszek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Masakari is happy to EOL Rocky too. > > Radek > -yoctozepto > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 20:59, Jay Faulkner <jay(a)gr-oss.io> wrote: > > > > Thanks for doing all this cleanup work Elod. Ironic is OK with retirements of these shared resources up to Train. > > > > - > > Jay Faulkner > > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:12 AM Elõd Illés <elod.illes(a)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… > >> >

3 4