[tc][release] Networking-midonet current status and Wallaby release
skaplons at redhat.com
Mon Mar 29 11:06:31 UTC 2021
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:52:59AM +0200, Herve Beraud wrote:
> The main question is, does the previous Victoria version  will be
> compatible with the latest neutron changes and with the latest engine
> facade introduced during Wallaby?
It won't be compatible. Networking-midonet from Victoria will not work properly
with Neutron Wallaby.
> Releasing an unfixed engine facade code is useless, so we shouldn't release
> a new version of networking-midonet, because the project code won't be
> compatible with the rest of our projects (AFAIK neutron), unless, the
> previous version will not compatible either, and, unless, not releasing a
> Wallaby version leave the project branch uncut and so leave the
> corresponding series unmaintainable, and so unfixable a posteriori.
> If we do not release a new version then we will use a previous version of
> networking-midonet. This version will be the last Victoria version .
> I suppose that this version (the victoria version) isn't compatible with
> the new facade engine either, isn't it?
Correct. It's not compatible.
> So release or not release a new version won't solve the facade engine
> problem, isn't?
> You said that neutron evolved and networking-midonet didn't, hence even if
> we release networking-midonet in the current state it will fail too, isn't
Also yes :)
> However, releasing a new version and branching on it can give you the
> needed maintenance window to allow you to fix the issue later, when your
> gates will be fixed and then patches backported. git tags are cheap.
> We should notice that since Victoria some patches have been merged in
> Wallaby so even if they aren't ground breaking changes they are changes
> that it is worth to release.
> From a release point of view I think it's worth it to release a new version
> and to cut Wallaby. We are close to the it's deadline. That will land the
> available delta between Victoria and Wallaby. That will allow to fix the
> engine facade by opening a maintenance window. If the project is still
> lacking maintainers in a few weeks / months, this will allow a more smooth
> deprecation of this one.
Based on Your feedback I agree that we should release now what we have. Even if
it's broken we can then fix it and backport fixes to stable/wallaby branch.
@Akihiro: are You ok with that too?
> Le lun. 29 mars 2021 à 10:32, Slawek Kaplonski <skaplons at redhat.com> a
> écrit :
> > Hi,
> > We have opened release patch for networking-midonet  but our concern
> > about
> > that project is that its gate is completly broken since some time thus we
> > don't really know if the project is still working and valid to be released.
> > In Wallaby cycle Neutron for example finished transition to the engine
> > facade,
> > and patch to adjust that in networking-midonet is still opened  (and
> > red as
> > there were some unrelated issues with most of the jobs there).
> > In the past we had discussion about networking-midonet project and it's
> > status
> > as the official Neutron stadium project. Then some new folks stepped in to
> > maintain it but now it seems a bit like (again) it lacks of maintainers.
> > I know that it is very late in the cycle now so my question to the TC and
> > release teams is: should we release stable/wallaby with its current state,
> > even if it's broken or should we maybe don't release it at all until its
> > gate
> > will be up and running?
> >  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781713
> >  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/networking-midonet/+/770797
> > --
> > Slawek Kaplonski
> > Principal Software Engineer
> > Red Hat
> Hervé Beraud
> Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat
> irc: hberaud
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Principal Software Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the openstack-discuss