Interesting. This is probably a little bit off-topic but I find it very interesting that a majority of all the big OpenStack clouds out there is running on containers based and a lot of them using “LOKI” that was talked about so much in the OpenInfra Live Keynotes. What I don’t understand is that, with all these limited resources, there is no joint effort in the OpenStack ecosystem to solve the container deliverables issue and then just have all deployments/tooling use the same. Maybe that what they are doing though, using Kolla images… but then, wouldn’t they contribute more and the below not be a problem *makes me wonder* Sorry for off-topic loud thinking. Best regards Tobias
On 18 Nov 2021, at 13:33, Michał Nasiadka <mnasiadka@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Koalas,
On the PTG we have discussed two topics:
1) Deprecate and drop binary type of Kolla images 2) Use a common base (single Linux distribution) for Kolla images
This is a call for feedback - for people that have not been attending the PTG.
What this essentially mean for consumers:
1) In Yoga cycle we will deprecate binary type of Kolla images, and in Z cycle those will be dropped. 2) We are not going to support CentOS Stream 9 (cs9) as a base operating system, and the source type build will rely on CentOS Stream 8 in Z release. 3) Beginning from A release Kolla will build only Debian source images - but Kolla-Ansible will still support deployment of those images on CentOS/Ubuntu/Debian Host operating systems (and Rocky Linux to be added in Yoga to that mix).
Justification: The Kolla project team is limited in numbers, therefore supporting current broad mix of operating systems (especially with CentOS Stream 9 ,,on the way’’) is a significant maintenance burden. By dropping binary type of images - users would be running more tested images (since Kolla/Kolla-Ansible CI runs source images jobs as voting). In Xena we’ve already changed the default image type Kolla-Ansible uses to source. We also feel that using a unified base OS for Kolla container images is a way to remove some of the maintenance burden (including CI cycles and
Request for feedback: If any of those changes is a no go from your perspective - we’d like to hear your opinions.
Best regards, Michal Nasiadka