Open Stack

+1 to stop creating and maintaining bugfix branches for bifrost

it's been an interesting experiment but they're not really as useful as
expected

Riccardo

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 9:16 PM Mark Goddard <mark at stackhpc.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 at 19:27, Julia Kreger <juliaashleykreger at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1, drop the bugfix branches on bifrost.
> >
> > There are two cases where we've seen people want or need to use
> > *stable* branches in bifrost.
> >
> > 1) "I want to run some precise stable branch of all the things because
> > surely the stable branch will have every fix for better experience."
> > 2) "I want to run a precise version and need behavior which has been
> > removed in newer releases.
> >
> > Only the latter has really been a case where they have *had* to use a
> > stable branch of bifrost, since bifrost has long supported specific
> > branch/tag overrides for what to install from source. The same
> > capability has often allowed those with the fromer desire to tune
> > exactly what they want/desire if they know they need that aspect.
>
> Kayobe consumes the bifrost stable branches. We often get bitten by
> changes to bifrost (and its deps) in master, and the stable branches
> shield us from this while allowing for bug fixes.
>
> Secondly, while the version of bifrost & its dependencies isn't tied
> to those of the cloud infrastructure, it does simplify things somewhat
> to be able to say everything is running code from series X.
>
> We don't use the bugfix branches.
>
> Mark
>
> >
> > -Julia
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:13 AM Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi team!
> > >
> > > Some time ago we introduced bugfix/X.Y branches [1] to some of the
> Ironic projects. This has worked pretty well and has been very helpful in
> ironic/inspector/IPA, but I have second thoughts about Bifrost.
> > >
> > > First, maintaining Bifrost branches is tedious enough because of how
> many distros we support and how quickly they change.
> > >
> > > Second, our recommended approach to using Bifrost is to git-clone
> master and work from it. I'm honestly unsure if the regular stable branches
> are used (outside of the Kolla CI), let alone bugfix branches. (I also
> doubt that Bifrost releases are very popular or even meaningful, but that's
> another topic.)
> > >
> > > As one of few people who is maintaining bugfix branches, I suggest we
> stop making them for Bifrost and switch Bifrost back to normal
> cycle-with-intermediaries. We can keep releasing 3x per cycle, just to have
> checkpoints, but only create "normal" stable branches.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Dmitry
> > >
> > > [1]
> https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/approved/new-release-model.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
> > > Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
> > > Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs,
> Michael O'Neill
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20220119/f627844e/attachment.htm>