Open Stack

Great,
Thanks for the clarification, it had me worried for a bit.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:05 AM Marios Andreou <marios at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:44 AM Jiri Podivin <jpodivin at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > Sorry I'm replying this late, but this line raised some questions for me:
> > > To be clear, our plan is to remove *all* centos8 check/gate jobs,
> >
> > It seems to imply that all centos8 jobs in both pipelines will be
> removed, across stable branches.
> > Does this mean up to and including train?
> > It was my understanding that everything older than wallaby will remain
> as it is.
> >
>
> This discussion is exclusively about wallaby - older stable branches
> will be unaffected.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 8:04 AM Marios Andreou <marios at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 5:03 PM Jesse Pretorius <jesse at odyssey4.me>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi folks, response in-line.
> >> >
> >> > > On 24 Feb 2022, at 15:11, Marios Andreou <marios at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hello TripleO o/
> >> > >
> >> > > During the last period the tripleo-ci team has been working on
> getting
> >> > > tripleo CI jobs to run centos-9.
> >> > >
> >> > > On master branches across all TripleO repos we now run C9
> exclusively
> >> > > (since [1]).
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wallaby branches, after the work at [2] (in particular after
> >> > > https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-ci/+/830132 merges)
> we
> >> > > will run both C8 and C9 jobs. I started an etherpad at [3] thinking
> >> > > this would be a PTG topic, but I think we'll want to have this
> >> > > conversation way before then. There is a tripleo-heat-templates
> >> > > example in the etherpad that shows what we can expect from the job
> >> > > runs (note the exact jobs that run will vary per repo and even
> between
> >> > > changes depending on the files touched - but generally there will be
> >> > > duplication between 8 and 9 jobs).
> >> > >
> >> > > The current proposal is that we keep a minimal subset on C8 Wallaby,
> >> > > with C9 wallaby having the full set of jobs.
> >> > >
> >> > > Two factors that will affect our decisions are (there may be more?)
> >> > >
> >> > >  i) Upgrades requirements - are we supporting upgrading to Wallaby
> on
> >> > > 8? For example, the coming undercloud-upgrade-ffu job will be train
> 8
> >> > > to wallaby 8. In which case we definitely need to keep at least some
> >> > > subset of 8 jobs (and can't entertain the removal of 8 from Wallaby
> >> > > completely).
> >> >
> >> > I think trying to keep up with the moving target of 8-stream would be
> counterproductive given that we are pinned downstream to RHEL 8.4 for
> Train. We do have a pending patch to merge a job for
> 8-Stream/Train->8-Stream Wallaby for the Undercloud only, which would be
> nice to keep but if it becomes troublesome then I’d suggest we remove it.
> This job adds some value to us (and has added quite a bit already in
> preparing it and making it pass), but if 8-stream starts making it fail, or
> it starts failing due to database migrations then we’ll have to shift that
> job downstream and deal with the consequences of only ever finding upgrade
> bugs post-merge.
> >> >
> >> > It is well known that a Fast-Forward Upgrade (FFU) of OpenStack
> services is not supported upstream, so we can not expect any upstream jobs
> to reliability support this process. If/when there is broader support for
> enabling FFU support officially in OpenStack services, then we can
> reconsider this position.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hi Jesse,
> >>
> >> thanks for replying here too.
> >>
> >> As shaped by the discussions yesterday and for the benefit of others -
> >> our current plan is to keep the c8 undercloud-ffu job and in fact that
> >> will be the *only* job we will keep on C8 (if standalone ffu upgrade
> >> becomes a thing then that will also be 8 only). At least, we'll make a
> >> best effort to keep this and we can re-evaluate once we hit blocking
> >> issues.
> >>
> >> In order to maintain this C8 gate we'll also need to maintain the
> >> equivalent periodic version for the integration line. So we'll have a
> >> C8 integration line running the undercloud-ffu job and possibly one
> >> ovb job (TBD, likely featureset 1).
> >>
> >> To be clear, our plan is to remove *all* centos8 check/gate jobs,
> >> except the undercloud-ffu. We are not planning to keep any 'base' set
> >> of c8 jobs unless someone can make a case for their value.
> >>
> >> The tripleo-ci team will start implementing the removal of c8/wallaby
> >> jobs once we switch to use c9 for the imports which should happen
> >> within the next week or so.
> >>
> >> regards, marios
> >>
> >> > >  ii) Are we importing from Wallaby 8 or Wallaby 9? Currently it is 8
> >> > > but this will soon switch.
> >> > >
> >> > > For the wallaby c8 'subset of jobs' e.g. multinode, vanilla
> standalone
> >> > > (no scenarios? some subset of them?), undercloud-ffu, minor update.
> >> > >
> >> > > This is just to start the conversation so please reply if you have
> >> > > thoughts or comments about any of the above.
> >> > >
> >> > > We are planning to discuss this in the coming tripleo-ci community
> >> > > call this coming Tuesday at 1330 UTC - meeting link at [4] so please
> >> > > join us if you can and would like to participate,
> >> > >
> >> > > regards, marios
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:c8_teardown_master
> >> > > [2] https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:c9_wallaby_gates
> >> > > [3] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tripleoci-wallaby-centos-8-9
> >> > > [4] https://meet.google.com/bqx-xwht-wky
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:44 AM Jiri Podivin <jpodivin at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > Sorry I'm replying this late, but this line raised some questions for me:
> > > To be clear, our plan is to remove *all* centos8 check/gate jobs,
> >
> > It seems to imply that all centos8 jobs in both pipelines will be
> removed, across stable branches.
> > Does this mean up to and including train?
> > It was my understanding that everything older than wallaby will remain
> as it is.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 8:04 AM Marios Andreou <marios at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 5:03 PM Jesse Pretorius <jesse at odyssey4.me>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi folks, response in-line.
> >> >
> >> > > On 24 Feb 2022, at 15:11, Marios Andreou <marios at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hello TripleO o/
> >> > >
> >> > > During the last period the tripleo-ci team has been working on
> getting
> >> > > tripleo CI jobs to run centos-9.
> >> > >
> >> > > On master branches across all TripleO repos we now run C9
> exclusively
> >> > > (since [1]).
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wallaby branches, after the work at [2] (in particular after
> >> > > https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-ci/+/830132 merges)
> we
> >> > > will run both C8 and C9 jobs. I started an etherpad at [3] thinking
> >> > > this would be a PTG topic, but I think we'll want to have this
> >> > > conversation way before then. There is a tripleo-heat-templates
> >> > > example in the etherpad that shows what we can expect from the job
> >> > > runs (note the exact jobs that run will vary per repo and even
> between
> >> > > changes depending on the files touched - but generally there will be
> >> > > duplication between 8 and 9 jobs).
> >> > >
> >> > > The current proposal is that we keep a minimal subset on C8 Wallaby,
> >> > > with C9 wallaby having the full set of jobs.
> >> > >
> >> > > Two factors that will affect our decisions are (there may be more?)
> >> > >
> >> > >  i) Upgrades requirements - are we supporting upgrading to Wallaby
> on
> >> > > 8? For example, the coming undercloud-upgrade-ffu job will be train
> 8
> >> > > to wallaby 8. In which case we definitely need to keep at least some
> >> > > subset of 8 jobs (and can't entertain the removal of 8 from Wallaby
> >> > > completely).
> >> >
> >> > I think trying to keep up with the moving target of 8-stream would be
> counterproductive given that we are pinned downstream to RHEL 8.4 for
> Train. We do have a pending patch to merge a job for
> 8-Stream/Train->8-Stream Wallaby for the Undercloud only, which would be
> nice to keep but if it becomes troublesome then I’d suggest we remove it.
> This job adds some value to us (and has added quite a bit already in
> preparing it and making it pass), but if 8-stream starts making it fail, or
> it starts failing due to database migrations then we’ll have to shift that
> job downstream and deal with the consequences of only ever finding upgrade
> bugs post-merge.
> >> >
> >> > It is well known that a Fast-Forward Upgrade (FFU) of OpenStack
> services is not supported upstream, so we can not expect any upstream jobs
> to reliability support this process. If/when there is broader support for
> enabling FFU support officially in OpenStack services, then we can
> reconsider this position.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hi Jesse,
> >>
> >> thanks for replying here too.
> >>
> >> As shaped by the discussions yesterday and for the benefit of others -
> >> our current plan is to keep the c8 undercloud-ffu job and in fact that
> >> will be the *only* job we will keep on C8 (if standalone ffu upgrade
> >> becomes a thing then that will also be 8 only). At least, we'll make a
> >> best effort to keep this and we can re-evaluate once we hit blocking
> >> issues.
> >>
> >> In order to maintain this C8 gate we'll also need to maintain the
> >> equivalent periodic version for the integration line. So we'll have a
> >> C8 integration line running the undercloud-ffu job and possibly one
> >> ovb job (TBD, likely featureset 1).
> >>
> >> To be clear, our plan is to remove *all* centos8 check/gate jobs,
> >> except the undercloud-ffu. We are not planning to keep any 'base' set
> >> of c8 jobs unless someone can make a case for their value.
> >>
> >> The tripleo-ci team will start implementing the removal of c8/wallaby
> >> jobs once we switch to use c9 for the imports which should happen
> >> within the next week or so.
> >>
> >> regards, marios
> >>
> >> > >  ii) Are we importing from Wallaby 8 or Wallaby 9? Currently it is 8
> >> > > but this will soon switch.
> >> > >
> >> > > For the wallaby c8 'subset of jobs' e.g. multinode, vanilla
> standalone
> >> > > (no scenarios? some subset of them?), undercloud-ffu, minor update.
> >> > >
> >> > > This is just to start the conversation so please reply if you have
> >> > > thoughts or comments about any of the above.
> >> > >
> >> > > We are planning to discuss this in the coming tripleo-ci community
> >> > > call this coming Tuesday at 1330 UTC - meeting link at [4] so please
> >> > > join us if you can and would like to participate,
> >> > >
> >> > > regards, marios
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:c8_teardown_master
> >> > > [2] https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:c9_wallaby_gates
> >> > > [3] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tripleoci-wallaby-centos-8-9
> >> > > [4] https://meet.google.com/bqx-xwht-wky
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20220302/25f88ea1/attachment-0001.htm>