On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:51 AM Dmitry Tantsur dtantsur@protonmail.com wrote:
On 6/8/23 12:53, smooney@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2023-06-07 at 15:44 -0700, Dan Sneddon wrote:
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 12:49 PM Jeremy Stanley fungi@yuggoth.org
wrote:
On 2023-06-07 12:07:59 -0700 (-0700), Dan Sneddon wrote:
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 9:00 AM Clark Boylan cboylan@sapwetik.org
wrote: [...]
Is there some reason the existing repository won't work?
Currently os-net-config is a part of the TripleO project. Since TripleO is retiring and being replaced by something hosted on GitHub, we are no longer maintaining the Master/Zed branches.
[...]
Maybe you misunderstood. To restate: Is there any reason the people who want to use and maintain the openstack/os-net-config master and stable/zed (or other) branches can't just adopt the project? It's well within the TC's power to grant control of that repository to another project team who isn't TripleO.
Which use cases specifically (outside of Red Hat's lingering interest in the stable/wallaby branches of TripleO repositories) are you referring to? -- Jeremy Stanley
The people who want to continue to use os-net-config are developing the replacement for TripleO, but they have moved to GutHub. That’s an option for os-net-config, but not my first preference. I have over the years heard of companies using os-net-config for various use cases. It’s possible that posting to openstack-discuss won’t reach
any
of those users, but it doesn’t hurt to ask here.
i will need to reread the thread but i thought that there was reference
to baremetal
use cases i had assumed that meant ironic?
just because we are using GitHub for the replacement for tripleo is not
a reason to move
things to github by default. movign to github for the code review as im
sure you are aware
is a much worse code review interface. we would be loosing the release
tooling and ablity to
publish to pypi. the ci would need to be ported amoung other things.
There is also an open question of if/how much of os-net-config will
continue to be used for the
operator based installer. alternatives are being considered although we
have known gaps.
no desicssion has been made on if we will continue with os-net-config or
replace it with nmstate
or a hybird of the two.
a quick search
https://codesearch.opendev.org/?q=os-net-config&i=nope&literal=nope&...
seams to indicate that os-net-config is used by:
- openstack-virtual-baremetal
- networking-bigswitch
- possibly starlingx
so i would suggest moving it to ironic governance and keeping the repo
as is to suppot the virtual baremetal usecase.
None of these repos are part of the baremetal project. I cannot speak for the PTL or for the team, but I highly doubt we'll be in a position to adopt os-net-config.
Dmitry
+1
I don't think any Ironic documentation refers to using os-net-config -- it's a single option for how to configure your images post-boot out of a large number (many of which remain supported). I agree with Dmitry that it's hard to see this fitting well in the baremetal program.
Thanks, Jay Faulkner Ironic PTL TC Vice-Chair