Open Stack

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Devananda van der Veen
<devananda.vdv at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> so.
>
>
> 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.

Yes, this ^^ is what I'm proposing, or was trying to anyway. The
master-master (dib-ironic) gate uses ipa, the master-stable gate would
use the bash ramdisk.


-- 
-- James Slagle
--