Open Stack

On 26-11-21 09:37:44, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
>  ---- On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 06:29:42 -0600 Lee Yarwood <lyarwood at redhat.com> wrote ----
>  > On 26-11-21 10:54:26, Alfredo Moralejo Alonso wrote:
>  > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:23 PM Ghanshyam Mann <gmann at ghanshyammann.com>
>  > > wrote:
>  > > 
>  > > >  ---- On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 13:58:28 -0600 Marcin Juszkiewicz <
>  > > > marcin.juszkiewicz at linaro.org> wrote ----
>  > > >  > W dniu 25.11.2021 o 19:13, Stephen Finucane pisze:
>  > > >  > > gmann has been helpfully proposing patches to change the
>  > > >  > > versions of Python we're testing against in Yoga. I've
>  > > >  > > suggested that we might want to bump 'python_requires' in
>  > > >  > > 'setup.cfg' to indicate that we no longer support any version
>  > > >  > > of Python before 3.8
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > CentOS Stream 8 has Python 3.6 by default and RDO team is doing
>  > > >  > CS8 -> CS9 migration during Yoga cycle. Can we postpone it to Z
>  > > >  > when there will be no distribution with Py 3.6 to care about?
>  > 
>  > Stupid question that I should know the answer to but does RDO really
>  > support RPM based installations anymore? IOW couldn't we just workaround
>  > this by providing CS8 py38 based containers during the upgrade?
>  > 
>  > > As Marcin posted, the plan in RDO is to support both CentOS Stream 8 and
>  > > CentOS Stream 9 in Yoga. This is how we have managed previous major CentOS
>  > > version upgrades in the past providing support for both releases in an
>  > > OpenStack version to ease the upgrade so I'd like to keep yoga working on
>  > > py3.6 included in CS8 and CS9.
>  > 
>  > If this was the plan why wasn't it made clear to the TC before they
>  > dropped CS8 from the Yoga runtimes? Would it even be possible for the TC
>  > to add CS8 and py36 back in to the Yoga runtimes?
>  > 
>  > > > Postponing to Z, you mean dropping the py3.6 tests or bumping it in
>  > > > in 'setup.cfg' so that no one can install on py3.6 ?
>  > > >
>  > > > First one we already did and as per Yoga testing runtime we are
>  > > > targeting centos9-stream[1] in Yoga itself.
>  > > >
>  > > > For making 'python_requires' >=py3.8 in 'setup.cfg', I have no
>  > > > string opinion on this but I prefer to have flexible here that 'yes
>  > > > OpenStack is installable in py3.6 but we do not test it anymore from
>  > > > Yoga onwards so no guarantee'.  Our testing runtime main goal is
>  > > > that we document the version we are testing *at least* which means
>  > > > it can work on lower or higher versions too but we just do not test
>  > > > them.
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > > May it be possible to keep py3.6 jobs to make sure patches are not
>  > > introducing py3.8-only features that would break deployment in CS8?
>  > 
>  > We should keep CS8 and py36 as supported runtimes if we are keeping the
>  > jobs, otherwise this just sets super confusing.
> 
> Yeah, I think it create confusion as I can see in this ML thread so
> agree on keeping  'python_requires'  also in sycn with what we test.

Cool thanks!
 
> Now question on going back to centos stream 8 support in Yoga, is it
> not centos stream 9 is stable released or is it experimental only? If
> stable then we can keep the latest available version which can be
> centos stream 9.

I honestly don't know and can't find any docs to point to.
 
> Our project interface testing doc clearly stats 'latest LTS' to
> consider for testing[1] whenever we are ready. I am not very strongly
> against of reverting back to centos stream 8 but we should not add two
> version of same distro in testing which can be a lot of we consider
> below three distro

How do we expect operators to upgrade between Xena where CentOS 8 stream
is a supported runtime and Yoga where CentOS 9 stream is currently the
equivalent supported runtime without supporting both for a single
release?

I appreciate it bloats the support matrix a little but the rest of the
thread suggests we need to keep py36 around for now anyway.

Cheers, 

-- 
Lee Yarwood                 A5D1 9385 88CB 7E5F BE64  6618 BCA6 6E33 F672 2D76
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20211126/595f3fa5/attachment.sig>