Open Stack

Hi

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:57 PM Alfredo Moralejo Alonso <amoralej at redhat.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 4:32 PM Alfredo Moralejo Alonso <
> amoralej at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> During CentOS 8 dependencies preparation we've built ansible 2.9 in RDO
>> dependencies repo  which was released on Oct 2019,
>>
>> While testing TripleO with CentOS8 it has been discovered that the latest
>> release of ceph-ansible does not support ansible 2.9 but only 2.8, so I'm
>> opening discussion about the best way to move on in CentOS 8:
>>
>> - Make ceph-ansible 4.0 to work with ansible 2.8 *and* 2.9 so that the
>> same releases can be used in CentOS7 with Stein and Train and CentOS8 Train
>> and Ussuri.
>>
>

ceph-ansible team has created a new release 4.0.16 which supports both
ansible 2.8 and 2.9. I've started testing it with master and CentOS8 [1]
and i've reported an issue in TripleO jobs [2]. I'd appreciate any help
from tripleo to work on this.

Note that the plan from ceph team is to remove the support of ansible 2.8
in future releases of ceph-ansible in nautilus so we'd need to backport
required fixes for 2.9 to all branches supporting nautilus, which means
stable/train and potentially stable/stein (although depending on the EOL
and plans for Extended Maintenance in this branch may help to not need it).

Regards,

Alfredo

[1] https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/25914/
[2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/+bug/1867608




> - Maintain separated ceph-ansible releases and builds for centos7/ansible
>> 2.8 and centos8/ansible 2.9 able to deploy Nautilus.
>> - Move ansible back to 2.8 in CentOS 8 Ussuri repository.
>>
>> I wonder if TripleO or other projects using ansible from RDO repositories
>> has any requirement or need to move to ansible 2.9 in Ussuri cycle or can
>> stay in 2.8 until next release, any thoughts?
>>
>>
> I've proposed moving to 2.8.8 in CentOS8 ussuri
> https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/25379/
>
> Feedback is appreciated.
>
>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200316/60d0be06/attachment.html>