Open Stack

On 2020. 07. 23. 21:43, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
> On 7/23/20 10:56 AM, Előd Illés wrote:
> [snip]
>> Maybe before you EOL Cinder's Pike, it would be nice to review & 
>> merge at least the open patches [3], I can help with the review as 
>> soon as the gate fixing patch [4] has merged (which I have already 
>> reviewed :)). To be honest I haven't reviewed yet the other patches 
>> because I reviewed first the gate fixing ones and waited them to get 
>> merged. Anyway, I'm always happy to help with stable reviews, at 
>> least from stable core point of view (but I can only give +1 for 
>> patches in Cinder).
>
> We've held off on merging anything because if we're going to EOL it 
> anyway, what's the point? -- and we didn't want to reset the 6-month 
> 'unmaintenance' clock.  But if:
>
> (1) the gates are really working, and

The gate jobs are really working, as I said before :)


> (2) the community agrees that we can make a set of final commits to 
> stable/pike and then immediately EOL it --
>
> I think that would be reasonable, especially since it would allow us 
> to merge the fixes for OSSN-0086 into stable/pike, which would be nice 
> (though the patches have been available in Gerrit for anyone who wants 
> them).
>
> There are no open reviews for python-cinderclient or 
> python-brick-cinderclient-ext, so we don't have to worry about those 
> repos.
>
> With respect to (1), I've got two test patches to make sure the 
> stable/pike cinder and os-brick gates are functional today:
> - https://review.opendev.org/730959
> - https://review.opendev.org/731196
> I don't mean to be unreasonable, but if I have to do more than 2 
> rechecks on either of those to get them to pass, I have no interest in 
> proceeding to step 2.  (They both must pass because the ossn-0086 fix 
> must be applied to both cinder and os-brick or it doesn't fix anything.)
>
> With respect to (2), the policy reads: "After a project/branch exceeds 
> the time allocation as Unmaintained, or a team decides to explicitly 
> end support for a branch, it will become End of Life." [0]  My reading 
> of that "or" is that we would *not* have to wait another 6 months to 
> declare Pike EOL given that the Cinder team has explicitly decided to 
> end support for that branch.  If anyone interested in this matter 
> reads the document differently, now would be a good time to speak up.


Yes, you read and understand the documentation correctly, we don't have 
to wait another 6 months (see the patch that introduced this wording: 
https://review.opendev.org/#/q/I92542012108f0aa07e28968479cdaddf7e06301d ).


>
> [0] 
> https://opendev.org/openstack/project-team-guide/src/commit/5a8b34fbba7c0744456f5d32167e0295f8578387/doc/source/stable-branches.rst
>
> And, just to be clear about what patches are eligible:
> cinder:
> - https://review.opendev.org/737094
> - https://review.opendev.org/733662
> - https://review.opendev.org/734725
> - https://review.opendev.org/734723
> - https://review.opendev.org/729604
>
> os-brick:
> - https://review.opendev.org/733615
> - https://review.opendev.org/740318
>
> No other reviews will be considered for inclusion.
>
> I put a -W on the "Cinder: EOL Pike" patch while we think this over. 
> But one way or another, the cinder project stable/pike branches will 
> be EOL by this time next week.


Thanks for thinking this over.
OK, Cinder will go EOL next week, I understand.


>
>>
>> About the Cinder zuul jobs in EOL candidate branches: I'll go through 
>> the zuul jobs in Pike and Ocata in Cinder to look for unused job 
>> definitions and propose deletion patch if there are such.
>
> Thanks, I appreciate it.
>
> [snip]
>
>
Thanks,

Előd