Open Stack

Sorry, these 2 statements sound quite contradictory to me, as keeping
branch in EM and EOLing them are 2 different things.

According to the meeting logs I assume you wanted to say that there were no
objections to EOL branches / no reasons provided to keep them in EM?

чт, 2 февр. 2023 г., 19:01 Rajat Dhasmana <rdhasman at redhat.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Updating cinder status here.
> We discussed this in the cinder meeting yesterday[1] and there were no
> objections from the team to keep rocky and stein branches in EM.
> So cinder is +1 on moving rocky and stein branches to EOL.
>
> [1]
> https://meetings.opendev.org/irclogs/%23openstack-meeting-alt/%23openstack-meeting-alt.2023-02-01.log.html#t2023-02-01T14:42:34
>
> Thanks
> Rajat Dhasmana
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:18 AM Rajat Dhasmana <rdhasman at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Elod,
>>
>> The last commits done in rocky[1] and stein[2] were on Sep 17, 2021.
>> Since then we also discovered that one of the job
>> definition, nova-multiattach[3] was removed in nova rocky release and since
>> nova EOLed their rocky branch[4], that job is breaking (although I haven't
>> confirmed with WIP patches but the last commit in September 2021 passed
>> that job[5] and the gate breaking was noticed recently with change[6]).
>>
>> We will discuss this in the cinder upstream meeting this week and will
>> update this thread but I'm currently in favor of moving cinder rocky and
>> stein branches to EOL.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/commit/cdcf7b5f8b3c850555942f422b8ad1f43e21fe7b
>> [2]
>> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/commit/667c6da08d423888f1df85d639fef058553f6169
>> [3] https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/stable/rocky/.zuul.yaml#L153
>> [4] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/862520
>> [5]
>> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/809657/1#message-50e6adf07ba3883a74f6e9939d34f0f0f0fe8d7a
>> [6]
>> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/871799/3#message-439428e2a146adc233e1a894a7a85004f3f920e4
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rajat Dhasmana
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:38 PM Elõd Illés <elod.illes at est.tech> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Similarly like the Queens branch EOL proposal [1] I would like to propose
>>> to transition every project's stable/rocky to End of Life:
>>>
>>> - gates are mostly broken
>>> - minimal number of activity can be seen on this branch
>>> - some core projects already transitioned their stable/rocky to EOL
>>>   recently (like ironic, neutron, nova)
>>> - gate job definitions are still using the old, legacy zuul syntax
>>> - gate jobs are based on Ubuntu Xenial, which is also beyond its public
>>>   maintenance window date and hard to maintain
>>>
>>> Based on the above, if there won't be any project who wants to keep open
>>> their stable/rocky, then I'll start the process of EOL'ing Rocky stable
>>> series as a whole. If anyone has any objection then please respond to
>>> this mail.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Előd Illés
>>> irc: elodilles @ #openstack-stable / #openstack-release
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-October/031030.html
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20230203/51906587/attachment-0001.htm>