[openstack-dev] [ironic] [tripleo] [stable] Phasing out old Ironic ramdisk and its gate jobs
Devananda van der Veen
devananda.vdv at gmail.com
Tue Feb 23 22:18:58 UTC 2016
Responding to your points out of order, since that makes more sense to me
right now ...
Since currently DIB claims to be backwards compatible, we just need to
> leave master backwards compatible with Kilo and Liberty Ironic, which
> means not deleting the bash ramdisk element. If Ironic wants to remove
> the bash ramdisk support from master, then it ought to be able to do
Yes, we'd like to remove support (read: code) from Ironic for the bash
ramdisk. It was deprecated in Liberty, and I'd like to remove it soon (no
later than once Newton opens).
> What if you removed the code from Ironic, but left the element in DIB,
> with a note that it only works with stable/liberty and earlier
> versions of Ironic?
Sure, except ...
> Could we then:
> gate master DIB changes on an Ironic stable/liberty job that uses the
> bash ramdisk - this would catch any regressions in DIB that break the
> bash ramdisk
Yup. We could do this.
> gate master DIB changes on an Ironic master job - this is what
> gate-tempest-dsvm-ironic-pxe_ssh-dib is already doing (I think).
This, we could not do.
Once we remove the support for the bash ramdisk from ironic/master, we will
not be able to test the "deploy-baremetal" element in dib/master against
ironic/master. We will only be able to test DIB with the "ironic-agent"
element against ironic/master. However, since some users of dib still rely
on the bash ramdisk (eg, because they're using older versions of Ironic) we
understand the need to keep that element supported within dib.
> Is that a valid option, and would it remove the desire for a stable
> branch of DIB?
> We currently say that DIB is backwards compatible and doesn't use
> stable branches. If there's a desire to change that, I think that's
> certainly open for discussion. But I don't think we're in a situtation
> where it's preventing us from moving forward with removing the bash
> ramdisk code from Ironic aiui, but I might be misunderstanding. I also
> think that having a stable branch sends the message that master isn't
> backwards compatible. If that's not the message, why do we need the
> stable branch?
We believe we need the stable branch because we believe we should test
master-master for "ironic-agent" and stable-stable for "deploy-baremetal".
On the other hand, we could test master-stable (dib-ironic) for the
"deploy-baremetal" element. If we did that, then we don't need a stable
branch of dib.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev