From neutron perspective as networking-l2gw (and networking-l2gw-tempest-plugin) is not a neutron stadium project it is not monitored by them. As I see like tap-as-a-service and other small networking (but not stadium)

Hi, Back to the question of moving l2gw under 'x' from openstack. I think it is a valid option which we discussed with networking team. projects it can leave under 'x'. Regards Lajos Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmx.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2020. máj. 19., K, 17:51):

...

...

There are no tarballs published for ussuri networking-mlnx or vmware-nsx. The most recently published tarballs were in February. Is this expected? networking-l2gw also has no ussuri tarballs, although master was updated recently. Thanks to Yatin Karel for pointing out that some projects now publish under x/ namespace. l2gw does not though, so I'm not sure about that one.

It looks like networking-l2gw is still under the openstack/ namespace:

https://opendev.org/openstack/networking-l2gw

Though it looks like it shouldn't be since it is not under official governance:

https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/reference/project...

No official release team releases have been done for this repo. It looks like there was a 15.0.0 tag pushed by the team last October:

https://opendev.org/openstack/networking-l2gw/src/tag/15.0.0

And there is a corresponding 15.0.0 tarball published for that one:

https://tarballs.opendev.org/openstack/networking-l2gw/networking-l2gw-15.0....

So it looks like this repo either needs to be added to governance, and added to the releases deliverables, or it needs to move to the x/ namespace and have tagging managed by the team.

Sean

On 2020-05-20 23:45:17 +0200 (+0200), Slawek Kaplonski wrote:

Actually I'm not really sure what are the criteria of what should be in the "openstack/" and what in "x/" namespace. I know that in "openstack/" should be an official OpenStack projects but how to really be sure what is such official project and what no, I don't know.

"Officially part of OpenStack" in this case means it's listed in https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/reference/project... at the time it was published, but also inclusion here has been considered sufficient for carrying the OpenStack name in similar ways: https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/reference/sigs-re...

Speaking about those projects mentioned in the thread, networking-mlnx and vmware-nsx are both in the "x/" namespace but networking-l2gw is in the "openstack/" namespace. None of them is Neutron stadium project. There is also many other projects with "networking-" in the name in the "openstack/" namespace. For example:

networking-baremetal networking-generic-switch

which Ironic team is taking care of. But we have also projects like:

networking-onos networking-calico

and probably others. Those projects are not in deliverables in https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/branch/master (at least not for Train or Ussuri releases). So should we keep them in "openstack/" namespace or move to "x/"? [...]

During the great namespace migration, we did not rename(space) any repositories listed in the two files I mentioned above or any which were formerly part of OpenStack as evidenced by inclusion in this file: https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/reference/legacy.... That decision was recorded in this resolution: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20190322-namespace-unofficia... (Worth noting, the "unknown/" namespace mentioned there was a placeholder, and "x/" is what the OpenDev sysadmins ultimately chose to use instead.) We announced via another resolution that any projects which were once but no longer part of OpenStack had until the end of the Train cycle to pick a new namespace for themselves: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20190711-mandatory-repositor... I guess the question is what to do about artifacts generated for stable branches of repositories which were deliverables for earlier OpenStack coordinated releases. My take is that we've already got a concept of "partial retirement" where a project is deprecated but still receives stable branch releases for some period of time thereafter. Taking the mandatory retirement resolution into account, I think that means the best fit for a workflow is to fork continued development to another namespace outside "openstack/" namespace (whether that's "x/" or something new), and follow the current partial retirement precedent for the original copy which remains in the "openstack/" namespace. I agree though, this is a tough question with obvious complexities for all possible solutions. -- Jeremy Stanley

Hi Mark, We will do the release hopefully tomorrow

-----Original Message----- From: Mark Goddard <mark@stackhpc.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 6:31 PM To: openstack-discuss <openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [neutron][release] Missing tarballs for networking-mlnx, networking-l2gw and vmware-nsx

On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 15:30, Mark Goddard <mark@stackhpc.com> wrote:

...

Hi,

There are no tarballs published for ussuri networking-mlnx or vmware-nsx. The most recently published tarballs were in February. Is this expected? networking-l2gw also has no ussuri tarballs, although master was updated recently.

Thanks to Yatin Karel for pointing out that some projects now publish under x/ namespace. l2gw does not though, so I'm not sure about that one.

...

Thanks, Mark