Open Stack

Hi,

thanks for all the feedbacks from teams so far!

@Zigo: Extended Maintenance process was created just for the same situation: to give space to interested parties to cooperate and keep things maintained even when stable releases are over their 'supported' lifetime. So it's good to see that there is interest in it! Unfortunately, with very old branches we've reached the state where gates can't be maintained and without a functional gate it's not safe to merge patches (yes, even security fixes) and they are just using resources (CI & maintainers' time). When gate is broken in such extent, then i think the community have to accept that it is not possible to merge patches confidently and needs to EOL that release. (Yes, it means that some vendors still have to do it for their own sake, testing it by their own, etc). Keeping things open in such state gives the false signal to vendors that 'it is maintained' however this is done without fully testing the changes.

Another aspect is that code cannot be cleaned up until those old branches are still present (CI jobs, project configurations, etc) which gives pain for developers.

So, however some vendors would appreciate probably to keep things open forever, for the community this is not beneficial and doable I think. Seeing that teams want to EOL their old branches is a proof that this is needed (unfortunately).

Thanks,

Előd Illés
irc: elodilles @ #openstack-stable / #openstack-release


________________________________
From: Thomas Goirand <thomas at goirand.fr>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 2:25 PM
Cc: openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org <openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [all][stable][ptl] Propose to EOL Rocky series

Hi,

I understand the gate is broken, however, Rocky is in Debian LTS, and I would like to keep the possibility to merge patches, even with the gate tests disabled. CVE-2022-47951 is an example why this is important...

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

On Jan 28, 2023 11:54, Radosław Piliszek <radoslaw.piliszek at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Masakari is happy to EOL Rocky too.
>
> Radek
> -yoctozepto
>
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 20:59, Jay Faulkner <jay at gr-oss.io> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for doing all this cleanup work Elod. Ironic is OK with retirements of these shared resources up to Train.
> >
> > -
> > Jay Faulkner
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:12 AM 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/20230210/3da40b49/attachment-0001.htm>