[tc] [ironic] Promoting ironic to a top-level opendev project?
juliaashleykreger at gmail.com
Mon Apr 13 20:30:44 UTC 2020
Jumping back into the thread after taking a few days off last week and
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:03 AM <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com> wrote:
>> After reading this lengthy and enlightening threadI come back to Julia original points.
>> 1. What are the benefits of having Ironic as part of OpenStack vs. having Ironic as part of opendev?
>> a. I do not buy that people will use Ironic more as standalone. Biforst has been created several years back and was available as standalone Ironic. And it is not widely used.
> It is widely used, just not among big names. Julia and I constantly encounter people using it, as well as just installing ironic standalone themselves or with kolla. And now metal3 is another standalone ironic use case completely unrelated to openstack.
This and worse. Big names use it, but don't like to publicly talk
about it. Or they use it in fixed process areas. Somewhere along the
way, we stopped encouraging operators/deployers to really talk about
their lives and the way they achieve their work. The result is FAR
less visibility of their use, and a fast track to perception of
non-use. What we need as a community is actual data collection and
statistics that are not an opt-in poll. I know that seems antithetical
to OpenStack's culture, but perhaps a separate website might be able
to help drive that.
Another, possibly silly question, are there metrics available for the
logs of docs.openstack.org ?
>> b. Will the gate and other processes change? Do not think so since the current ones work reasonably well.
> Not much or not at all.
And also, Ironic is largely on the consumption side of other projects
for integration point testing. Changes outside our control can break
the Ironic's gate because there is no cross-gating with the way things
have structurally resulted and evolved over the years. Sometimes we've
been able to get breaking changes in other projects reverted quickly,
but getting forward moving fixes has always been an uphill battle
because the perception of other projects and areas is that it works
>> d. Will Ironic change its release cadence if it is no longer part of OpenStack proper? Ironic is only as good as its underlying drivers. That means that all drivers, that are currently outside of OpenStack governance will have to follow.
In-tree drivers are subject to governance and release processes at
present. Which is why our stable branch cut is when we release for the
cycle. Also because we're not able to otherwise create the branch
without a tag and we don't get beta releases. (Those who hack on the
releases repo scripting, please feel free to correct me!)
What is not subject to governance is vendor specific API client libraries.
More information about the openstack-discuss