Open Stack

On Wed, 2021-06-09 at 15:17 +0200, Alfredo Moralejo Alonso wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 1:49 PM Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2021-06-09 at 12:06 +0300, Marios Andreou wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, Alfredo Moralejo Alonso <amoralej at redhat.com
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 2:48 AM Dan Sneddon <dsneddon at redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Thanks for making the announcement. Can you clarify how the
> > > > > feature-freeze dates will be communicated to the greater community of
> > > > > contributors?
> > > > > 
> > > > > - Dan Sneddon
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Jun 8, 2021, at 8:21 AM, Wesley Hayutin <whayutin at redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Greetings TripleO community!
> > > > > 
> > > > > At the most recent TripleO community meetings we have discussed
> > formally
> > > > > changing the OpenStack release model for TripleO [1].  The previous
> > > > > released projects can be found here [2]. TripleO has previously
> > released
> > > > > with release-type[‘trailing’, ‘cycle-with-intermediary’].
> > > > > 
> > > > > To quote the release model doc:
> > > > > 
> > > > > ‘Trailing deliverables trail the release, so they cannot, by
> > definition,
> > > > > be independent. They need to pick between cycle-with-rc
> > > > > <
> > https://releases.openstack.org/reference/release_models.html#cycle-with-rc
> > > 
> > > > > or cycle-with-intermediary
> > > > > <
> > https://releases.openstack.org/reference/release_models.html#cycle-with-intermediary
> > > 
> > > > > models.’
> > > > > 
> > > > > We are proposing to update the release-model to ‘independent’.  This
> > > > > would give the TripleO community more flexibility in when we choose
> > to cut
> > > > > a release.  In turn this would mean less backporting, less upstream
> > and 3rd
> > > > > party resources used by potentially some future releases.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > What does this change mean in terms of branches and compatibility for
> > > > OpenStack stable releases?.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > as i wrote to Dan just now the main thing is that we may delay or even
> > skip
> > > a particular branch. For compatibility I guess it means we would have to
> > > rely on git tags so perhaps making consistently frequent (eg monthly? or
> > > more?) releases for all the tripleo repos. You could then call a
> > particular
> > > range of tags as being compatible with stable/Y for example. Does it
> > sound
> > > sane/doable from an rdo package build perspective?
> > > 
> > too me this feels like we are leaking downstream product lifecycle into
> > upstream.
> > even if redhat is overwhelmingly the majority contibutor of reviews and
> > commits to
> > ooo im not sure that changing the upstream lifestyle to align more closely
> > with our product life
> > cycle is the correct thing to do.
> > 
> > at least while tripleo is still in the Openstack namespaces and not the x
> > namespaces.
> > Skipping upstream release is really quite a radical departure form the
> > project original goals.
> > i think it would also be counter productive to our downstream efforts to
> > move our testing close to upstream.
> > if ooo was to lose the ablity to test master for example we would not be
> > able to use ooo in our downstream ci to test
> > feature that we plan to release osp n+1 that are develop during an
> > upstream cycle that wont be productised.
> > 
> > i do not work on ooo so at the end of the day this wont affect me much but
> > to me skipping releases seam counter intuitive
> > given the previous efforts to make ooo more usable for development and ci.
> > Moving to independent
> > to decouple the lifecycle seams more reasonable if the underlying goal is
> > not to skip releases. you can release when ready
> > rather then scrambling or wating for a deadline. personally i think moving
> > in the other direction so that ooo can release sooner
> > not later would make the project more appealing as the delay in support of
> > a release is often considered a detractor for tripleo vs
> > other openstack installers.
> > 
> > i would hope that this change would not have any effect on the rdo
> > packaging of non ooo packages.
> > the rdo packages are used by other instalation methods (the puppet moduels
> > for example) including i belive some of the larger chineese providers that
> > have written there own installers. i think it would be damaging to centos
> > if rdo was to skip upstream version of say nova. what might need to change
> > is the packaging of ooo itself in rdo.
> > 
> > tl;dr im not against the idea of ooo moving to independent model but i
> > would hope that it will not affect RDO's packaging of non ooo projects and
> > that
> > ooo can still be used for ci of master and stable branches of for example
> > nova.
> > 
> > 
> 
> RDO has no plans on skipping releases or any other changes affecting
> non-tripleo packages. The impact of this change (unclear at this point)
> should only affect the packages for those repos.
ack
> 
> Note that RDO aims at being used and useful for other users and deployment
> tools as Puppet modules, Kolla, or others willing to work in CentOS and
> we'd like to maintain the collaboration with them as needed.
ya that is what i was expecting. thanks for confirming.
provided the possible change in ooo direction does not negatively impact the other
consumes of rdo i dont really have an objection to ooo changing how they work if peolel think it will
make there lives and there customer live simpler in the long run.

as i said i do not work on or use ooo frequently but i have consumed the output of rdo
via kolla in the past and while i typeically prefer using the source install i know many
do use the centos binary install variant using the rdo packages.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Alfredo
> 
> 
> > regards
> > sean
> > 
> > > 
> > > regards, marios
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > To quote the release model doc:
> > > > > 
> > > > > ‘Some projects opt to completely bypass the 6-month cycle and release
> > > > > independently. For example, that is the case of projects that
> > support the
> > > > > development infrastructure. The “independent” model describes such
> > > > > projects.’
> > > > > 
> > > > > The discussion here is to merely inform the greater community with
> > > > > regards to the proposal and conversations regarding the release
> > model.
> > > > > This thread is NOT meant to discuss previous releases or their
> > supported
> > > > > status, merely changing the release model here [3]
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > [0] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tripleo-meeting-items
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1]  https://releases.openstack.org/reference/release_models.html
> > > > > 
> > > > > [2] https://releases.openstack.org/teams/tripleo.html
> > > > > 
> > > > > [3] https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/branch/master/
> > > > > deliverables/xena
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> >