Thanks Qin, Sure, have a nice ans safe holiday. Ping us once you are back for any help in the process. -gmann ---- On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 07:02:07 -0600 Dazhong Qin (秦海中)-云数据中心集团 <qinhaizhong01@inspur.com> wrote ----
Hi Ghanshyam: The next week is Chinese New Year, there will be some delay in replying. After the holiday, we will continue to communicate with the neutron team to discuss the revert of neutron-fwaas.
-----邮件原件----- 发件人: Ghanshyam Mann [mailto:gmann@ghanshyammann.com] 发送时间: 2022年1月29日 3:09 收件人: Lajos Katona <katonalala@gmail.com> 抄送: Openstack Discuss List <openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org>; Dazhong Qin (秦海中)-云数据中心集团 <qinhaizhong01@inspur.com> 主题: Re: Can neutron-fwaas project be revived?
---- On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 10:59:28 -0600 Lajos Katona <katonalala@gmail.com> wrote ---- > Hi,Today Neutron drivers team again discussed the topic of the maintenance of neutron-fwaas.
The team agreed to include neutron-fwaas again to Neutron stadium, with the maintenance of Inspur and the guidance of Neutron core team, and with +2 rights to Inspur developers. The logs of the meeting:https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/neutron_drivers/2022/neutron_drivers.2... The process for Stadium projects:https://docs.openstack.org/neutron/latest/contributor/stadium/governance.htm... Thanks for stepping in to maintaining and developing neutron-fwaas.
Thanks lajoskatona, neutron team for reconsidering it.
@ Inspur team, Plese propose the revert of deprecation of neutron-fwaas in governance. and after that we can setup the project-config, jobs things there.
-gmann
RegardsLajos Katona (lajoskatona)
Lajos Katona <katonalala@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2022. jan. 20., Cs, 10:07): Hi,Neutron team is open to include projects to the stadium group (that was the feeling during the meeting also when we discussed this topic) if there is a stable maintainer team behind the project.So as you mentioned it would be easier to avoid the back and forth movement of fwaas if possible. Lajos
Ghanshyam Mann <gmann@ghanshyammann.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2022. jan. 19., Sze, 15:02): ---- On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 02:23:39 -0600 Lajos Katona <katonalala@gmail.com> wrote ---- > > Hi, > > Thanks for the advice.
The intention from the Neutron team was to make it clear that the team currently has no capacity to help the maintenance of neutron-fwaas, and can't help to maintain it.If there's easier ways for volunteers to keep it maintained other than forking it to x/ namespace that would be really helpful.
Thanks Lajos,
Main point here is if it is maintained by current maintainer (inspur team or other developers) whether neutron team will consider that > to be in added in neutron stadium?
If yes, then it will be extra work to move to x/ namespace now and then bring back to openstack/. If no, then moving to x/ namespace is good option or if maintainer want to be in openstack then we can discuss about > a separate new project (but that needs more discussion on host much cost it adds).
-gmann
Lajos Katona (lajoskatona)
Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2022. jan. 18., K, 18:58): On 2022-01-18 10:49:48 -0600 (-0600), Ghanshyam Mann wrote: [...]
As discussed in project-config change[1], you or neutron folks can > > > propose the retirement now itself (considering there is no one to > > > maintain/release stable/victoria for new bug fixes) and TC will > > > merge it as per process. After that, creating it in x/ namespace > > > will be good to do. [...]
Looking at this from a logistical perspective, it's a fair amount of > > churn in code hosting as well as unwelcoming to the new volunteers, > > compared to just leaving the repository where it is now and letting > > them contribute to it there. If the concern is that the Neutron team > > doesn't want to retain responsibility for it while they evaluate the > > conviction of the new maintainers for eventual re-inclusion, then > > the TC would be well within its rights to declare that the > > repository can remain in place while not having it be part of the > > Neutron team's responsibilities.
There are a number of possible solutions, ranging from making a new > > category of provisional deliverable, to creating a lightweight > > project team under the DPL model, to declaring it a pop-up team with > > a TC-owned repository. There are repositories within the OpenStack > > namespace which are not an official part of the OpenStack > > coordinated release, after all. Solutions which don't involve having > > the new work take place somewhere separate, and the work involved in > > making that separate place, which will simply be closed down as > > transient cruft if everything goes as desired. -- Jeremy Stanley