[openstack-dev] [ironic] [stable] Suggestion to remove stable/liberty and stable branches support from ironic-python-agent
trown at redhat.com
Fri Feb 19 12:52:27 UTC 2016
On 02/19/2016 07:29 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
> By removing stable branches you mean stable branches for mitaka and
> newer releases or that includes stable/liberty which already exist as
> I think the latter is more complicated, I don't think we should drop
> stable/liberty like that because other people (apart from TripleO) may
> also depend on that. I mean, it wouldn't be very "stable" if stable
> branches were deleted before their supported phases.
I would argue it is also not very stable if there is not testing against
For the RDO use case in particular, it is about having LIO support in
liberty, so that it is feature complete with the bash ramdisk. Then the
bash ramdisk can return to the bit bucket.
The tricky bit is that RDO does not include patches in our packages
built from trunk (trunk.rdoproject.org), and for liberty we first check
if stable/liberty exists, then fallback to master if it does not. So the
presence of stable/liberty that is not actually the recommended way to
build IPA for liberty is a bit not ideal for us.
All of that said, I totally understand not wanting to delete a branch.
Especially since I think I am the one who Dmitry is referring to asking
for it. (Though I think what I wanted was releases which is subtly
I think there are some hacks I could make in our trunk builder if I at
least have a ML post like this as justification. I am not 100% sure that
is possible though.
> But that said, I'm +1 to not have stable branches for newer releases.
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi all!
>> Initially we didn't plan on having stable branches for IPA at all. Our gate
>> is using the prebuilt image generated from the master branch even on
>> Ironic/Inspector stable branches. The branch in question was added by
>> request of RDO folks, and today I got a request from trown to remove it:
>> <trown> dtantsur: btw, what do you think the chances are that IPA gets rid
>> of stable branch?
>> <dtantsur> I'm +1 on that, because currently only tripleo is using this
>> stable branch, our own gates are using tarball from master
>> <dtantsur> s/tarball/prebuilt image/
>> <trown> cool, from RDO perspective, I would prefer to have master package in
>> our liberty delorean server, but I cant do that (without major hacks) if
>> there is a stable/liberty branch
>> <trown> LIO support being the main reason
>> <trown> fwiw, I have tested master IPA on liberty and it works great
>> So I suggest we drop stable branches from IPA. This won't affect the Ironic
>> gate in any regard, as we don't use stable IPA there anyway, as I mentioned
>> before. As we do know already, we'll keep IPA compatible with all supported
>> Ironic and Inspector versions.
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev