Open Stack

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:01 PM Herve Beraud <hberaud at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Sorry for my late reply, and thanks for the heads up.
>
> Can't we move directly to EOL [1]?
> I don't see reason to keep an unmaintained repo open, and if the repos
> remain open and patches merged then it's not really unmaintained repos.
>
> The goal of the extended maintenance was to offer more chances to
> downstream maintainers to get/share patches and fixes, if you decide to not
> maintain them anymore then I would suggest you to move to "EOL" directly,
> it would be less misleading.
>
> Notice that if you move rocky to eol all the corresponding branches will
> be dropped in your repos.
>
> Also notice that last week we proposed a new kind of tag (<series>-last)
> [2][3] for Tempest's needs, but because tempest is branchless...
>
> Maybe we could extend this notion (-last) to allow the project to reflect
> the last step...
> It could reflect that it will be your last release, and that the project
> is near from the end.
>
> But if you don't plan to merge patches, or if you don't have patches to
> merge anymore, then I would really suggest to you to move directly to EOL,
> else it means that you're not really "unmaintained".
>

OK thanks very much Herve as always for your time and thoughts here. I am
not against the EOL I just thought it was more of a requirement to declare
it 'unmaintained' first. The advantage is it is a softer path to completely
closing it off for any future submissions. Possibly the '-last' tag fits
this need but if I have understood correctly it might need some adjustment
to the definition of that tag ('we could extend this notion') and honestly
I don't know if it is necessary. More likely straight to EOL is what we
want here.

I will bring this up again in tomorrow's tripleo irc meeting
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-January/019859.html
and point to this thread. Let's see what other opinions there are around
EOL vs -last for stable/rocky

thank you, marios



>
> Hopefully it will help you to find the solution that fits your needs.
>
> Let me know if you have more questions.
>
> [1]
> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20180301-stable-branch-eol.html#end-of-life
> [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/770265
> [3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/769821
>
> Le ven. 15 janv. 2021 à 16:52, Marios Andreou <marios at redhat.com> a
> écrit :
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Hervé Beraud
> Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat
> irc: hberaud
> https://github.com/4383/
> https://twitter.com/4383hberaud
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> wsFcBAABCAAQBQJb4AwCCRAHwXRBNkGNegAALSkQAHrotwCiL3VMwDR0vcja10Q+
> Kf31yCutl5bAlS7tOKpPQ9XN4oC0ZSThyNNFVrg8ail0SczHXsC4rOrsPblgGRN+
> RQLoCm2eO1AkB0ubCYLaq0XqSaO+Uk81QxAPkyPCEGT6SRxXr2lhADK0T86kBnMP
> F8RvGolu3EFjlqCVgeOZaR51PqwUlEhZXZuuNKrWZXg/oRiY4811GmnvzmUhgK5G
> 5+f8mUg74hfjDbR2VhjTeaLKp0PhskjOIKY3vqHXofLuaqFDD+WrAy/NgDGvN22g
> glGfj472T3xyHnUzM8ILgAGSghfzZF5Skj2qEeci9cB6K3Hm3osj+PbvfsXE/7Kw
> m/xtm+FjnaywZEv54uCmVIzQsRIm1qJscu20Qw6Q0UiPpDFqD7O6tWSRKdX11UTZ
> hwVQTMh9AKQDBEh2W9nnFi9kzSSNu4OQ1dRMcYHWfd9BEkccezxHwUM4Xyov5Fe0
> qnbfzTB1tYkjU78loMWFaLa00ftSxP/DtQ//iYVyfVNfcCwfDszXLOqlkvGmY1/Y
> F1ON0ONekDZkGJsDoS6QdiUSn8RZ2mHArGEWMV00EV5DCIbCXRvywXV43ckx8Z+3
> B8qUJhBqJ8RS2F+vTs3DTaXqcktgJ4UkhYC2c1gImcPRyGrK9VY0sCT+1iA+wp/O
> v6rDpkeNksZ9fFSyoY2o
> =ECSj
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20210118/d4fdb5e6/attachment.html>