[tc][release] Networking-midonet current status and Wallaby release

Akihiro Motoki amotoki at gmail.com
Mon Mar 29 11:11:09 UTC 2021


On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 6:53 PM Herve Beraud <hberaud at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> The main question is, does the previous Victoria version [1] will be compatible with the latest neutron changes and with the latest engine facade introduced during 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 [1].
> I suppose that this version (the victoria version) isn't compatible with the new facade engine either, isn't it?
> 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 it?

Only folks involved in networking-midonet can answer these questions
correctly, and other neutron folks do not run networking-midonet (and
On the other hand, we know victoria release of some neutron related
projects does not work with wallaby neutron and neutron-lib (at least
for neutron-dynamic-routing and networking-bagpipe), so it is not
surprising victoria networking-midonet does not work with wallaby

> 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.

It is true to some extent, but I am not sure the merit here is more
than releasing the broken code (which we are not sure is not expected
to fix soon) as the initial release of Wallaby.

> 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.

No meaningful change happened in the main code after Victoria release.
We have only two commits since Victoria. The one is related to the
release note build which added stable/victoria. The other is a fix in
the devstack plugin.
Thus, I do not see a value at least from this point of view.

> 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.
> Thoughts?
> [1] https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/branch/master/deliverables/victoria/networking-midonet.yaml
> 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 [1] 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 [2] (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?
>> [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781713
>> [2] 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
> https://github.com/4383/
> https://twitter.com/4383hberaud
> Kf31yCutl5bAlS7tOKpPQ9XN4oC0ZSThyNNFVrg8ail0SczHXsC4rOrsPblgGRN+
> RQLoCm2eO1AkB0ubCYLaq0XqSaO+Uk81QxAPkyPCEGT6SRxXr2lhADK0T86kBnMP
> F8RvGolu3EFjlqCVgeOZaR51PqwUlEhZXZuuNKrWZXg/oRiY4811GmnvzmUhgK5G
> 5+f8mUg74hfjDbR2VhjTeaLKp0PhskjOIKY3vqHXofLuaqFDD+WrAy/NgDGvN22g
> glGfj472T3xyHnUzM8ILgAGSghfzZF5Skj2qEeci9cB6K3Hm3osj+PbvfsXE/7Kw
> m/xtm+FjnaywZEv54uCmVIzQsRIm1qJscu20Qw6Q0UiPpDFqD7O6tWSRKdX11UTZ
> hwVQTMh9AKQDBEh2W9nnFi9kzSSNu4OQ1dRMcYHWfd9BEkccezxHwUM4Xyov5Fe0
> qnbfzTB1tYkjU78loMWFaLa00ftSxP/DtQ//iYVyfVNfcCwfDszXLOqlkvGmY1/Y
> B8qUJhBqJ8RS2F+vTs3DTaXqcktgJ4UkhYC2c1gImcPRyGrK9VY0sCT+1iA+wp/O
> v6rDpkeNksZ9fFSyoY2o
> =ECSj

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list