On 29-05-20 08:17:16, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
---- On Fri, 29 May 2020 07:54:05 -0500 Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmx.com> wrote ----
On 5/29/20 6:34 AM, Előd Illés wrote:
[snip]
TL;DR: If it's not feasible to fix a general issue of a job, then drop that job. And I think we should not EOL Ocata in general, rather let projects EOL their ocata branch if they cannot invest more time on fixing them.
The interdependency is the trick here. Some projects can easily EOL on their own and it's isolated enough that it doesn't cause issues. But for other projects, like Cinder and Nova that I mentioned, it's kind of an all-or-nothing situation.
I suppose it is feasible that we drop testing to only running unit tests. If we don't run any kind of integration testing, then it does make these projects a little more independent.
We still have the requirements issues though. Unless someone addresses any rot in the stable requirements, even unit tests become hard to run.
Just thinking out loud on some of the issues I see. We can try to follow the original EM plan and leave it up to each project to declare their intent to go EOL, then tag ocata-eol to close it out. Or we can collectively decide Ocata is done and pull the big switch.
From the stable policy if CI has broken nd no maintainer then we can move that to unmaintained. And there is always time to revert back to EM if the maintainer shows up.
IMO, maintaining only with unit tests is not a good idea.
I have not heard from projects that they are interested to maintain it, if any then we can see how to proceed otherwise collectively marking Ocata as Unmaintained is the right thing.
Yup agreed, I'm going to be proposing that we move stable/ocata to unmaintained for openstack/nova at least FWIW, we haven't seen anything of value land there in the last three months: https://review.opendev.org/#/q/project:openstack/nova+branch:stable/ocata Cheers, -- Lee Yarwood A5D1 9385 88CB 7E5F BE64 6618 BCA6 6E33 F672 2D76