Open Stack

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Mark Hamzy <hamzy at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Alex Schultz <aschultz at redhat.com> wrote on 12/13/2017 04:29:49 PM:
>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Mark Hamzy <hamzy at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > What I have done at a high level is to rename the images into
>> > architecture
>> > specific
>> > images.  For example,
>> >
>> > (undercloud) [stack at oscloud5 ~]$ openstack image list
>> > +--------------------------------------
>> +-------------------------------+--------+
>> > | ID                                   | Name                          |
>> > Status |
>> > +--------------------------------------
>> +-------------------------------+--------+
>> > | fa0ed7cb-21d7-427b-b8cb-7c62f0ff7760 | ppc64le-bm-deploy-kernel      |
>> > active |
>> > | 94dc2adf-49ce-4db5-b914-970b57a8127f | ppc64le-bm-deploy-ramdisk     |
>> > active |
>> > | 6c50587d-dd29-41ba-8971-e0abf3429020 | ppc64le-overcloud-full        |
>> > active |
>> > | 59e512a7-990e-4689-85d2-f1f4e1e6e7a8 | x86_64-bm-deploy-kernel       |
>> > active |
>> > | bcad2821-01be-4556-b686-31c70bb64716 | x86_64-bm-deploy-ramdisk      |
>> > active |
>> > | 3ab489fa-32c7-4758-a630-287c510fc473 | x86_64-overcloud-full         |
>> > active |
>> > | 661f18f7-4d99-43e8-b7b8-f5c8a9d5b116 | x86_64-overcloud-full-initrd  |
>> > active |
>> > | 4a09c422-3de0-46ca-98c3-7c6f1f7717ff | x86_64-overcloud-full-vmlinuz |
>> > active |
>> > +--------------------------------------
>> +-------------------------------+--------+
>> >
>> > This will change existing functionality.
>> >
>>
>> Any chance of backwards compatibility if no arch is specified in the
>> image list so it's not that impacting?
>
> The patch as currently coded does not do that.  It is more consistent and
> cleaner as it is currently written.  How opposed is the community to a
> new convention?  I know we are pushing up against holidays and deadlines and
> don't know how much longer it will take to also support the old naming
> convention.
>

It's not that the community is averse to new conventions, the issue is
the lack of backwards compatibility especially late in the cycle. If
we need to extend out until the middle of January/the end of M3 for
this that is an option to get the backwards compatibility. I'm
wondering if this lack of backwards compatibility would be a problem
for upgrades or the more advanced use cases.  We do support the
ability for custom role images for the end users so I'm wondering what
the impact would be for that.  As I said previously, please post the
patches ASAP so we can get eyes on these changes.  Since this does
have an impact on the existing functionality this should have been
merged earlier in the cycle so we could work out any user facing
issues.

> RedHat is asking for another identifier along with ppc64le given that there
> are
> different optimizations and CPU instructions between a Power 8 system and a
> Power 9 system.  The kernel is certainly different and the base operating
> system might be as well.
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>