New Openstack Deployment questions - how will we respond to this change?

Jeremy Stanley fungi at
Tue Dec 15 18:07:22 UTC 2020

On 2020-12-15 14:40:01 +0000 (+0000), Braden, Albert wrote:
> If the OpenStack community decides to continue building on Stream,
> we should make it crystal clear to operators and users that Stream
> is not a production-ready OS and that our Stream OpenStack
> implementation is suitable for testing and development use only,
> unless they devote substantial resources to mirroring and testing
> Stream to insulate production clusters from the instability that
> it will introduce.

Up until merged last year, we
used to put it plainly in our testing specs that:

    "The following free operating systems are representative of
    platforms regularly used to deploy OpenStack on:
    Latest CentOS Major
    The CentOS distribution is derived from the sources of Red Hat
    Enterprise Linux (RHEL). In reality, RHEL is more popular than
    CentOS but we can't use this platform on upstream gates, so we
    rely on CentOS."

In essence, we've always been targeting RHEL and using CentOS as a
stand-in substitute. For that purpose, CentOS 8 Stream ought to
suffice for continued testing of our future releases to make sure
they remain compatible with RHEL 8. In fact, it may actually be
superior for that purpose, as it allows us to test what's going to
appear in impending minor and point releases of RHEL 8 rather than
testing a laggy copy of what's already been added in RHEL.

> Should we replace our Centos builds with RHEL, or with Rocky?

RHEL is still not a possibility for our CI from a licensing
perspective, from what I understand. Rocky Linux might be a
possibility, sure, once it's more than just a readme file and vapor.

> Does the community have (or can we find) the resources to do the
> work of maintaining stable Stream mirrors and only building
> OpenStack on our stable versions of Stream?

We already do:

<URL: >

> Or would it be better to drop Centos support and focus our efforts
> on operating systems that have not implemented unilateral changes
> that harm the community?

The TripleO project is by far the largest user of our CI
infrastructure (in aggregate node-hours), and they only work on
RHEL/RDO or close derivatives like CentOS, so I expect at least
they'll see value in continuing to have something RHEL-like to test
changes against.
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list