Open Stack

Igor,
couple of points from my side.

CentOS 7.2 will be getting updates for several more months, and we have
snapshots and all the mechanics in place to switch to the next version when
needed.

Speaking of getting this update into 9.0, we actually don't need FFE, we
can merge remaining staff today. It has enough reviews, so if you add your
+1 today, we don't need FFE.

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/280338/
https://review.fuel-infra.org/#/c/17400/



Regards,
Igor Marnat

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Dmitry Teselkin <dteselkin at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Igor,
>
> Your statement about updates for 7.2 isn't correct - it will receive
> updates,  because it's the latest release ATM. There is *no* pinning inside
> ISO, and the only place where it was 8.0 were docker containers just
> because we had to workaround some issues. But there are no docker
> containers in 9.0, so that's not the case.
> The proposed solution to switch to CentOS-7.2 in fact is based on
> selecting the right snapshot with packages. There is no pinning in ISO (it
> was in earlier versions of the spec but was removed).
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnitsky at mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dmitry, Igor,
>>
>> > Very important thing is that CentOS 7.1 which master node is based now
>> > don't get updates any longer.
>>
>> If you are using "fixed" release you must be ready that you won't get
>> any updates. So with CentOS 7.2 the problem still the same.
>>
>> However, let's wait for Fuel PTL decision. I only shared my POV:
>> that's not a critical feature, and taking into account the risks of
>> regression - I'd prefer to do not accept it in 9.0.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Igor
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Igor Marnat <imarnat at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> > Igor,
>> > please note that this is pretty much not like update of master node
>> which we
>> > had in 8.0. This is minor _update_ of CentOS from 7.1 to 7.2 which team
>> > tested for more than 2 months already.
>> >
>> > We don't expect it to require any additional efforts from core or qa
>> team.
>> >
>> > Very important thing is that CentOS 7.1 which master node is based now
>> don't
>> > get updates any longer. Updates are only provided for CentOS 7.2.
>> >
>> > So we'll have to switch CentOS 7.1 to CentOS 7.2 anyways.
>> >
>> > We can do it now for more or less free, later in release cycle for
>> higher
>> > risk and QA efforts and after the release for 2x price because of
>> additional
>> > QA cycle we'll need to pass through.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Igor Marnat
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Dmitry Teselkin <dteselkin at mirantis.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Igor,
>> >>
>> >> Postponing this till Fuel 10 means we have to elaborate a plan to do
>> such
>> >> upgrade for Fuel 9 after the release - the underlying system will not
>> get
>> >> updated on it's own, and the security issues will not close
>> themselves. The
>> >> problem here is that such upgrade of deployed master node requires a
>> lot of
>> >> QA work also.
>> >>
>> >> Since we are not going to update package we build on our own (they
>> still
>> >> targeted 7.1) switching master node base to CentOS-72 is not that
>> dangerous
>> >> as it seems.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <
>> ikalnitsky at mirantis.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hey Dmitry,
>> >>>
>> >>> No offence, but I rather against that exception. We have too many
>> >>> things to do in Mitaka, and moving to CentOS 7.2 means
>> >>>
>> >>> * extra effort from core team
>> >>> * extra effort from qa team
>> >>>
>> >>> Moreover, it might block development by introducing unpredictable
>> >>> regressions. Remember 8.0? So I think it'd be better to reduce risk of
>> >>> regressions that affects so many developers by postponing CentOS 7.2
>> >>> till Fuel 10.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Igor
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Dmitry Teselkin <
>> dteselkin at mirantis.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > I'd like to ask for a feature freeze exception for switching to
>> >>> > CentOS-7.2
>> >>> > feature [0].
>> >>> >
>> >>> > CentOS-7.2 ISO's have been tested periodically since the beginning
>> of
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > year, and all major issues were addressed / fixed at the moment.
>> During
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > last weekend I've made 70 BVT runs to verify that the  solution [2]
>> for
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > last issue - e1000 transmit unit hangs works. And it works, 0 tests
>> of
>> >>> > 35
>> >>> > failed [3].
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Benefits of switching to CentOS-7.2 are quite obvious - we will
>> return
>> >>> > to
>> >>> > latest supported CentOS release, will fix a lot of bugs / security
>> >>> > issues
>> >>> > [4] and will make further updates easier.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Risk of regression still exists, but it's quite low, 35 successful
>> BVTs
>> >>> > can't be wrong.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > To finish that feature the following should be done:
>> >>> > * review and merge e1000 workaround [2]
>> >>> > * review and merge spec [0]
>> >>> > * review and merge request that switches build CI to CentOS-7.2 [5]
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I expect the last day it could be done is March, 4.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/280338/
>> >>> > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1526544
>> >>> > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/285306/
>> >>> > [3]
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/r.1c4cfee8185326d6922d6c9321404350
>> >>> > [4]
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/r.a7fe0b575d891ed81206765fa5be6630
>> >>> > [5] https://review.fuel-infra.org/#/c/17400/
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > Thanks,
>> >>> > Dmitry Teselkin
>> >>> > Mirantis
>> >>> > http://www.mirantis.com
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> >>> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> >>> > Unsubscribe:
>> >>> > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> >>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> >>> Unsubscribe:
>> >>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Dmitry Teselkin
>> >> Mirantis
>> >> http://www.mirantis.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> >> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Dmitry Teselkin
> Mirantis
> http://www.mirantis.com
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160302/13d8751d/attachment.html>