Open Stack

Obviously Redhat will continue to support and use Openstack on Centos, and Redhat employees are a substantial part of the Openstack community. Without the contributions from Redhat employees, Openstack would struggle to survive. However, I don’t think that use by a single company is enough to justify the effort required to support a distro, even when that single company is a major contributor. I hope and believe that Redhat would continue their contributions to the Openstack community if we continued to support Openstack on RHEL and dropped support for Centos. 

I'm curious whether anyone who does not work for Redhat is planning to continue using Openstack on Centos long-term, and if so, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Schultz <aschultz at redhat.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 11:13 AM
To: Braden, Albert <abraden at verisign.com>
Cc: openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: python_requires >= 3.8 during Yoga

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:04 AM Braden, Albert <abraden at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> It appears that Centos is no longer a viable platform for production Openstack clusters. Of course we have to continue supporting those who are not yet able to move to another distro, but I think we should be clear-eyed about the fact that these are stopgap measures that only need to be implemented while people work on moving.
>

I'm not certain why this is how it's being interpreted.  CentOS stream
is perfectly viable but it is (as has always been) reliant on
packaging.  I believe Cloud SIG will still exist and RDO will be
publishing packages. In fact CentOS stream is generally better than
the previous release cadence that caused all sort of issues when point
releases dropped with breaking changes.  The difference in stream vs
legacy method was the volume of changes over time.  Stream you get
smaller changes sooner (along with fixes) where as the legacy method
you'd only really get updates at point release time and it was always
terrible troubleshooting these failures.   CentOS Stream 9 will have
3.9 as the default but we need to make sure that we can get it
available to the various projects for testing.  Right now Puppet
OpenStack primarily relies on CentOS for testing (because Ubuntu jobs
have been broken for a few years now with no one jumping in to fix).
So bumping the minimum version without having a way to deploy for us
would directly impact this project.

IMHO the issue with this thread is timing on being able to bump a
minimum python version requirement.  I personally wouldn't want to
bump to something that excludes 3.6 at this time without a really good
reason.  Are there features we require that will suddenly make
developer/operator lives easier (e.g. switching to asyncio or
something)?  If not, what is the driving factor?  I think pushing it
off to Z would be best to allow for the initial standup required to
have *all* the projects able to support the switch.

> Is anyone contemplating continuing to use Centos long-term? If so, I would be interested to hear your reasoning.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 10:13 AM
> To: openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: python_requires >= 3.8 during Yoga
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> On 26/11/21 10:29, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
> >   ---- On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:20:39 -0600 Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com> wrote ----
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 3:35 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> >   > On 2021-11-26 14:29:53 +0100 (+0100), Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> >   > [...]
> >   > > CentOS/RHEL ships 3.6 and a limited version of 3.8 and 3.9.
> >   > [...]
> >   >
> >   > Is this still true for CentOS Stream 9? The TC decision was to
> >   > support that instead of CentOS Stream 8 in Yoga.
> >   >
> >   > No. But Stream 9 is pretty much beta, so it's not a replacement for us (and we don't have nodes in nodepool with it even yet?).
> >
> > I think here is the confusion. In TC, after checking with centos team impression was CentOS stream 9 is released and that is
> > what we should update In OpenStack testing. And then only we updated the centos stream 8 -> 9 and dropped py3.6 testing
> >
> > - https://secure-web.cisco.com/1l5YAwIy_Kf9i8nZRj01Av73trnFQMqoxRgz_2n5WHVL6dc2mfcz-we8VRFvRToxc9yvnpH8QhTDlo2oJoiPHPBheqzFvIaRh40w5Ib3WUxBlvdAfSSNFxyJmXgPOxrq_AwWW27UvaTeFD_ycxhRyngSr_hY7Hji2WkdMMsFl19QfRhk20MI9giWNQk6uMAKlsLKRl4Zuod2cfgERb8Fwm5qwZkfA8NkOU9gZr4IF-nbSgg5aLbgowl4imparhsKS/https%3A%2F%2Freview.opendev.org%2Fc%2Fopenstack%2Fgovernance%2F%2B%2F815851%2F3..6%2Freference%2Fruntimes%2Fyoga.rst
>
> The guidelines the TC have set are not that something exists, but that
> it is a stable LTS release. Debian sid, Ubuntu 20.10, Fedora rawhide,
> and OpenSUSE Tumbleweed all exist, but nobody mistakes them for stable
> LTS releases. It's not clear to me why CentOS Stream is the only distro
> being treated differently.
>
> The only difference is there is no plan for a CentOS-branded release to
> define a point in time where Stream 9 becomes an LTS release. However,
> other parties do have such plans, but pointedly have not done so: RHEL9
> is in beta; Rocky Linux, Alma Linux, and Oracle Linux are all yet to
> release a version based on Stream 9.
>
> Presumably RDO folks were consulted about this decision and were OK with
> the time frame. However, there are other users out there, and from a
> Metal³ perspective this is a giant PITA, requiring us to move from a LTS
> distro to a beta one, that was dropped on us in the middle of a release
> cycle in flagrant violation of the TC's own guidelines that the stable
> distibutions must be chosen from among those available at the
> *beginning* of the release cycle (which CentOS Stream 9 was not).
>
> cheers,
> Zane.
>
>