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

Neil Jerram neil at tigera.io
Mon Mar 29 11:31:38 UTC 2021


Out of interest - for networking-calico - what changes are needed to adapt
to the new engine facade?


On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:14 PM Akihiro Motoki <amotoki at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:07 PM Slawek Kaplonski <skaplons at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:52:59AM +0200, Herve Beraud 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?
> >
> > 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 [1].
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > 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.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > 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?
>
> I was writing another reply and did not notice this mail.
> While I still have a doubt on releasing the broken code (which we are
> not sure can be fixed soon or not),
> I am okay with either decision.
>
> >
> > >
> > > [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
> > > -----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-----
> >
> > --
> > Slawek Kaplonski
> > Principal Software Engineer
> > Red Hat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20210329/b2422c22/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list