Greetings fellow ironicans and stackers! I'd like some thoughts on the `ibmc` driver[1] that was added early this year. Specifically it merged into ironic with an operating Third-Party CI, however soon after a series of unfortunate events occurred where the Third-Party CI stopped reporting sometime in early May, and shortly their after restrictions were put into place[2]. With that being said, I feel like we should go ahead and remove this driver since it does not seem to be maintained nor tested. -Julia [1]: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/639288/ [2]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/21/2019-10616/addition-of-...
Hi, On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 10:30 PM Julia Kreger <juliaashleykreger@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings fellow ironicans and stackers!
I'd like some thoughts on the `ibmc` driver[1] that was added early this year. Specifically it merged into ironic with an operating Third-Party CI, however soon after a series of unfortunate events occurred where the Third-Party CI stopped reporting sometime in early May, and shortly their after restrictions were put into place[2]. With that being said, I feel like we should go ahead and remove this driver since it does not seem to be maintained nor tested.
Do you mean deprecate and remove in V or just straight remove? I'd follow the regular procedure. Otherwise, it seems that we have no other options :( An interesting topic to discuss is how to avoid such situations when a driver only lives 1-2 cycles.. Dmitry
-Julia
[1]: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/639288/ [2]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/21/2019-10616/addition-of-...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:24 AM Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 10:30 PM Julia Kreger <juliaashleykreger@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings fellow ironicans and stackers!
I'd like some thoughts on the `ibmc` driver[1] that was added early this year. Specifically it merged into ironic with an operating Third-Party CI, however soon after a series of unfortunate events occurred where the Third-Party CI stopped reporting sometime in early May, and shortly their after restrictions were put into place[2]. With that being said, I feel like we should go ahead and remove this driver since it does not seem to be maintained nor tested.
Do you mean deprecate and remove in V or just straight remove? I'd follow the regular procedure. Otherwise, it seems that we have no other options :(
Either... Kind of why I emailed the mailing list. :) I'd lean for deprecated and take that route, but maybe someone has interest in keeping it working
An interesting topic to discuss is how to avoid such situations when a driver only lives 1-2 cycles..
Knowing a preference may exist for us to avoid the word support, I feel like it was a preview that didn't pan out. I don't feel that fear of this happening again should change any of our patterns moving forward though, since that would be the exact opposite of what is needed to encourage adoption. We also have some drivers that do the minimal, some that are engaged, and some that are kind of like they have a warp drive attached. I'd love for us to merge the coffee driver as a POC interface to help people understand mechanics, fwiw. Not that we can have a coffee machine wired into CI. "launched" "has_impulse" "has_warp_drive"? -Julia
Dmitry
-Julia
[1]: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/639288/ [2]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/21/2019-10616/addition-of-...
Hi, On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:14 PM Julia Kreger <juliaashleykreger@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:24 AM Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 10:30 PM Julia Kreger <
Greetings fellow ironicans and stackers!
I'd like some thoughts on the `ibmc` driver[1] that was added early this year. Specifically it merged into ironic with an operating Third-Party CI, however soon after a series of unfortunate events occurred where the Third-Party CI stopped reporting sometime in early May, and shortly their after restrictions were put into place[2]. With that being said, I feel like we should go ahead and remove this driver since it does not seem to be maintained nor tested.
Do you mean deprecate and remove in V or just straight remove? I'd follow the regular procedure. Otherwise, it seems that we have no other
juliaashleykreger@gmail.com> wrote: options :(
Either... Kind of why I emailed the mailing list. :) I'd lean for deprecated and take that route, but maybe someone has interest in keeping it working
An interesting topic to discuss is how to avoid such situations when a
driver only lives 1-2 cycles..
Knowing a preference may exist for us to avoid the word support, I feel like it was a preview that didn't pan out. I don't feel that fear of this happening again should change any of our patterns moving forward though, since that would be the exact opposite of what is needed to encourage adoption.
We could make all new hardware types starting in some sort of "tech preview" state, so enabling them would require something like enable_tech_preview_hardware_types=True in ironic.conf. It would be similar to the staging area in Linux. The reason is my (completely ungrounded) assumption that if a driver has survived 2 cycles, it has more chances of surviving longer.
We also have some drivers that do the minimal, some that are engaged, and some that are kind of like they have a warp drive attached. I'd love for us to merge the coffee driver as a POC interface to help people understand mechanics, fwiw. Not that we can have a coffee machine wired into CI. "launched" "has_impulse" "has_warp_drive"?
We have ironic-staging-drivers specifically for this ;) Dmitry
-Julia
Dmitry
-Julia
[1]: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/639288/ [2]:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/21/2019-10616/addition-of-...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:18 AM Julia Kreger <juliaashleykreger@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:24 AM Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 10:30 PM Julia Kreger <
Greetings fellow ironicans and stackers!
I'd like some thoughts on the `ibmc` driver[1] that was added early this year. Specifically it merged into ironic with an operating Third-Party CI, however soon after a series of unfortunate events occurred where the Third-Party CI stopped reporting sometime in early May, and shortly their after restrictions were put into place[2]. With that being said, I feel like we should go ahead and remove this driver since it does not seem to be maintained nor tested.
Do you mean deprecate and remove in V or just straight remove? I'd follow the regular procedure. Otherwise, it seems that we have no other
juliaashleykreger@gmail.com> wrote: options :(
Either... Kind of why I emailed the mailing list. :) I'd lean for deprecated and take that route, but maybe someone has interest in keeping it working
++ Let's follow the regular procedure unless [2] has ramifications that I don't understand (or maybe don't want to understand). I don't recall the regular procedure though. Was it: deprecate in cycle A (and notify community to allow someones to step up to support), and remove in cycle A+1? If so, let's deprecate now, in Train. We can un-deprecate if someone comes forward.
An interesting topic to discuss is how to avoid such situations when a
driver only lives 1-2 cycles..
Knowing a preference may exist for us to avoid the word support, I feel like it was a preview that didn't pan out. I don't feel that fear of this happening again should change any of our patterns moving forward though, since that would be the exact opposite of what is needed to encourage adoption.
This hopefully doesn't happen frequently, does it? It is hard to see the future so I don't know how we could have avoided this situation. I think as long as the driver makes sense at-the-time and meets our requirements, it ought to land. I don't want to add more processes/steps/hurdles... :) --ruby
participants (3)
-
Dmitry Tantsur
-
Julia Kreger
-
Ruby Loo