On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 7:01 PM Marios Andreou <marios at redhat.com> wrote: > Hello TripleO > > I would like to propose that we move all tripleo stable/rocky repos [1] to > "unmaintained", with a view to tagging as end-of-life in due course. > > This will allow us to focus our efforts on keeping the check and gate > queues green and continue to deliver weekly promotions for the more recent > and active stable/* branches train ussuri victoria and master. > > The stable/rocky repos have not had much action in the last few months - I > collected some info at [2] about the most recent stable/rocky commits for > each of the tripleo repos. For many of those there are no commits in the > last 6 months and for some even longer. > > The tripleo stable/rocky repos were tagged as "extended maintenance" > (rocky-em) [2] in April 2020 with [3]. > > We have already reduced our CI commitment for rocky - these [4] are the > current check/gate jobs and these [5] are the jobs that run for promotion > to current-tripleo. However maintaining this doesn’t make sense if we are > not even using it e.g. merging things into tripleo-* stable/rocky. > > Please raise your objections or any other comments or thoughts about this. > Unless there are any blockers raised here, the plan is to put this into > motion early in January. > > One still unanswered question I have is that since there is no > ‘unmaintained’ tag, in the same way as we have the <release>-em or > <release-eol> for extended maintenance and end-of-life, do we simply > _declare_ that the repos are unmaintained? Then after a period of “0 to 6 > months” per [6] we can tag the tripleo repos with rocky-eol. If any one > reading this knows please tell us! > > o/ hello ! replying to bump the thread - this was sent ~1 month ago now and there hasn't been any comment thus far. ping @Herve please do you know the answer to that question in the last paragraph above about 'declaring unmaintained' ? please thank you ;) As discussed at the last tripleo bi-weekly we can consider moving forward with this so I think it's prudent to give folks more chance to comment if they object for _reason_ thanks, marios > Thanks for reading! > > regards, marios > > > [1] https://releases.openstack.org/teams/tripleo.html#rocky > > [2] http://paste.openstack.org/raw/800464/ > > [3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/709912 > > [4] > http://dashboard-ci.tripleo.org/d/3-DYSmOGk/jobs-exploration?orgId=1&var-influxdb_filter=branch%7C%3D%7Cstable%2Frocky > > [5] > http://dashboard-ci.tripleo.org/d/3-DYSmOGk/jobs-exploration?orgId=1&fullscreen&panelId=9&var-influxdb_filter=type%7C%3D%7Crdo&var-influxdb_filter=job_name%7C%3D~%7C%2Fperiodic.*-rocky%2F > > [6] > https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#maintenance-phases > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20210115/76d4c878/attachment.html>