Open Stack

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 07:40:56PM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish <mtreinish at kortar.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we
> > don't do
> > this. When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci
> > against
> > it goes away. This means devstack support, job definitions, tempest skip
> > checks,
> > etc. Leaving the branch around advertises that you can still submit
> > patches to
> > it which you can't anymore. As a community we've very clearly said that we
> > don't
> > land any code without ensuring it passes tests first, and we do not
> > maintain any
> > of the infrastructure for doing that after an EOL.
> >
> >
> Ok, to turn the question around, we (the cinder team) have recognised a
> definite and strong need to have somewhere for vendors to share patches on
> versions of Cinder older than the stable branch policy allows.
> 
> Given this need, what are our options?
> 
> 1. We could do all this outside Openstack infrastructure. There are
> significant downsides to doing so from organisational, maintenance, cost
> etc points of view. Also means that the place vendors go for these patches
> is not obvious, and the process for getting patches in is not standard.

This is probably your only viable option. As a community we've hit this boundary
many times. Everyone claims to want longer support windows but when it comes
down to it there is very little activity in making things work on stable
branches. Our support window is at it's maximum viable length now, and that's
unlikely to change anytime soon. We had a discussion on this exact topic at
summit:

https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/r.ddabf5c865d6f77740bcfbc112ed391c

> 
> 2. We could have something not named 'stable' that has looser rules than
> stable branches,, maybe just pep8 / unit / cinder in-tree tests. No
> devstack.

This is not an option, as I said before this isn't feasible. All the
infrastructure for running jobs on the old branches goes away. It's much more
than you realize is actually there. Including things like global requirements,
job definitions, and old node types. A lot of work goes into keeping all of
this running, and it's all interconnected. There is a reason we EOL a branch,
it's not to be vindictive, it's because keeping it running is too much work for
the small number of people who fix things. (and to a lesser extent an increased
burden our CI resources)

Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in OpenStack.
We don't turn off entire classes of testing we have so we can land patches,
that's just a recipe for disaster.

-Matt Treinish

> 
> 3. We go with the Neutron model and take drivers out of tree. This is not
> something the cinder core team are in favour of - we see significant value
> in the code review that drivers currently get - the code quality
> improvements between when a driver is submitted and when it is merged are
> sometimes very significant. Also, taking the code out of tree makes it
> difficult to get all the drivers checked out in one place to analyse e.g.
> how a certain driver call is implemented across all the drivers, when
> reasoning or making changes to core code.
> 
> Given we've identified a clear need, and have repeated rejected one
> solution (take drivers out of tree - it has been discussed at every summit
> and midcycle for 3+ cycles), what positive suggestions can people make?
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160808/8519d536/attachment.pgp>