Open Stack

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 6:18 AM Ümit Seren <uemit.seren at gmail.com> wrote:

> What are the implications with regards to RDO and RHOSP which are based on
> TripleO ?
> Will they move to a different deployment method or will also development
> seize after Zed ?
>

Yes, the team at Red Hat is working on a different deployment method for
our product, specifically by hosting the control plane natively on
OpenShift while managing the dataplane with pure Ansible. We talked about
this strategy a bit at the Open Infra Summit in Berlin last June.

(Since you asked, I'm answering ... but I don't want to derail what should
be a community-oriented discussion about TripleO by conflating it with our
future product plans)

Thanks,
Eoghan


>
> Best
>
> Ümit Seren
>
>
>
> *From: *James Slagle <james.slagle at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 8. February 2023 at 18:38
> *To: *OpenStack Discuss <openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org>
> *Subject: *[TripleO] Last maintained release of TripleO is Wallaby
>
> The team of TripleO developers, reviewers, and community have no plans to
> do another release of TripleO, or to continue maintaining the Zed release.
> This means the last maintained release of TripleO is Wallaby. The plan is
> to continue to maintain the train and wallaby branches of TripleO
> repositories under the openstack namespace. We plan to continue to run
> existing CI on those branches, although we anticipate reducing to a minimal
> set of jobs in the future. Going forward, the TripleO team expects to
> continue involvement in other OpenStack projects, and focus on different
> approaches to OpenStack deployment.
>
>
>
> The team is not aware of enough other community interest to continue to
> maintain the zed, master, and future branches of TripleO. Eventually, we
> will empty commit these branches with a pointer to Wallaby being the last
> release. If other interests do exist to maintain TripleO going forward,
> then those plans can adjust.
>
>
>
> TripleO does not plan on nominating a PTL in the current Bobcat election
> cycle. If a PTL-like contact is needed for train and wallaby maintenance,
> then someone will be nominated. I am also not sure how to reflect this
> project structure change within openstack/governance, and am looking for
> guidance on how to do so. This type of change did not seem to exactly fit
> within the concepts of inactive or retired projects. I can work on the
> patches for governance with some direction, if anyone can provide it.
> Thanks, and please let us know any questions or feedback about this plan.
>
>
> --
>
> -- James Slagle
> --
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20230209/d71fe4c4/attachment.htm>