Open Stack

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:51 AM Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at protonmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 6/8/23 12:53, smooney at redhat.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-06-07 at 15:44 -0700, Dan Sneddon wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 12:49 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2023-06-07 12:07:59 -0700 (-0700), Dan Sneddon wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 9:00 AM Clark Boylan <cboylan at sapwetik.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>>> Is there some reason the existing repository won't work?
> >>>>
> >>>> Currently os-net-config is a part of the TripleO project. Since
> >>>> TripleO is retiring and being replaced by something hosted on
> >>>> GitHub, we are no longer maintaining the Master/Zed branches.
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> Maybe you misunderstood. To restate: Is there any reason the people
> >>> who want to use and maintain the openstack/os-net-config master and
> >>> stable/zed (or other) branches can't just adopt the project? It's
> >>> well within the TC's power to grant control of that repository to
> >>> another project team who isn't TripleO.
> >>>
> >>> Which use cases specifically (outside of Red Hat's lingering
> >>> interest in the stable/wallaby branches of TripleO repositories) are
> >>> you referring to?
> >>> --
> >>> Jeremy Stanley
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >> The people who want to continue to use os-net-config are developing the
> >> replacement for TripleO, but they have moved to GutHub. That’s an option
> >> for os-net-config, but not my first preference.
> >> I have over the years heard of companies using os-net-config for various
> >> use cases. It’s possible that posting to openstack-discuss won’t reach
> any
> >> of those users, but it doesn’t hurt to ask here.
> > i will need to reread the thread but i thought that there was reference
> to baremetal
> > use cases i had assumed that meant ironic?
> >
> > just because we are using GitHub for the replacement for tripleo is not
> a reason to move
> > things to github by default. movign to github for the code review as im
> sure you are aware
> > is a much worse code review interface. we would be loosing the release
> tooling and ablity to
> > publish to pypi. the ci would need to be ported amoung other things.
> >
> > There is also an open question of if/how much of os-net-config will
> continue to be used for the
> > operator based installer. alternatives are being considered although we
> have known gaps.
> > no desicssion has been made on if we will continue with os-net-config or
> replace it with nmstate
> > or a hybird of the two.
> >
> > a quick search
> https://codesearch.opendev.org/?q=os-net-config&i=nope&literal=nope&files=&excludeFiles=&repos=
> > seams to indicate that os-net-config is used by:
> > - openstack-virtual-baremetal
> > - networking-bigswitch
> > - possibly starlingx
> >
> > so i would suggest moving it to ironic governance and keeping the repo
> as is to suppot the virtual baremetal usecase.
>
> None of these repos are part of the baremetal project. I cannot speak
> for the PTL or for the team, but I highly doubt we'll be in a position
> to adopt os-net-config.
>
> Dmitry
>
> +1

I don't think any Ironic documentation refers to using os-net-config --
it's a single option for how to configure your images post-boot out of a
large number (many of which remain supported). I agree with Dmitry that
it's hard to see this fitting well in the baremetal program.

Thanks,
Jay Faulkner
Ironic PTL
TC Vice-Chair
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20230612/5cff5588/attachment-0001.htm>