Open Stack

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 09:36, Rajat Dhasmana <rdhasman at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We had a discussion in the last cinder meeting regarding making EM branches EOL for the cinder project[1].
> The discussion started because of the CVE fixes where we backported to active stable branches i.e. Yoga, Zed and 2023.1
> but there were no backports to further EM stable branches like Xena, Wallaby ... all the way to Train.

That is expected/totally fine with EM branches

> Cinder team doesn't see much merit in keeping these EM stable branches alive since there is rarely any activity that requires
> collaboration and if there is, it is usually by the core cinder team. Following are some of our reasons to EOL these branches:

This is less related to EM and more a result of make-up of many project teams.

> 1) We have less review bandwidth even for active stable branches (Yoga, Zed and 2023.1)

These are the only branches the cinder team is expected to be reviewing.

> 2) No one, apart from the project team, does backport of critical fixes implying that those branches aren't used much for collaboration

I understand your point but by removing them there is zero scope for
collaboration.  When the existing stable policy was discussed/created
in Sydney it was observed that there is basically 0 overlap with
branches that vendors pick to support for a longer time.  It seems
that in the
current climate this looks even worse. :(

> 3) Will save gate resources for some periodic jobs and the patches proposed

> 4) Save project team's time to fix gate issues

This is a valid point, do you have a feel for how much time the CInder
team spent fixing issues on EM branches?

> We, as the cinder team, have decided to EOL all the existing EM branches that go from Train to Xena. It was agreed upon by the cinder
> team and no objections were raised during the upstream cinder meeting.

This will be somewhat impactful on projects that wish to keep CI
running for EM branches, devstack will need to know where/how to get
cinder projects code, and would make it nearly impossible to projects
that overlap with the cinder team (nova via os-brick) to maintain any
critical updates on their non EM branches.

> We would like to gather more feedback outside of the cinder team regarding if this affects other projects, deployers, operators, vendors etc.
> Please reply to this email with your concerns, if you have any, so we can discuss again and reconsider our decision. Else the week after the
> summit we will be moving forward with our current decision.
> If you will be at the Vancouver Summit, you can also give us feedback at the cinder Forum session at 11:40 am on Wednesday June 14.

For sure.

>
> [1] https://meetings.opendev.org/irclogs/%23openstack-meeting-alt/%23openstack-meeting-alt.2023-05-31.log.html#t2023-05-31T14:22:23
>
> Thanks
> Rajat Dhasmana



--
Yours Tony.