Open Stack

Hey,

I'm trying to clean up zuul-config-errors for Ironic, and Train has reared
its head again: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic-lib/+/884722.

Is there still value in continuing to keep Train (and perhaps, Ussuri and
Victoria) in EM at this point? Should we migrate them to EOL?

What do you all think?

-
Jay Faulkner
Ironic PTL

On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:12 PM Steve Baker <sbaker at redhat.com> wrote:

>
> On 12/10/22 05:53, Jay Faulkner wrote:
>
> We discussed stable branches in the most recent ironic meeting (
> https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/ironic/2022/ironic.2022-10-10-15.01.log.txt).
> The decision was made to do the following:
>
> EOL these branches:
> - stable/queens
> - stable/rocky
> - stable/stein
>
> Reduce testing considerably on these branches, and only backport critical
> bugfixes or security bugfixes:
> - stable/train
> - stable/ussuri
> - stable/victoria
>
> Just coming back to this, keeping stable/train jobs green has become
> untenable so I think its time we consider EOLing it.
>
> It is the extended-maintenance branch of interest to me, so I'd be fine
> with stable/ussuri and stable/victoria being EOLed also.
>
> Our remaining branches will continue to get most eligible patches
> backported to them.
>
> This email, plus earlier communications including a tweet, will serve as
> notice that these branches are being EOL'd.
>
> Thanks,
> Jay Faulkner
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 11:18 AM Jay Faulkner <jay at gr-oss.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Ironic has a large amount of stable branches still in EM. We need to take
>> action to ensure those branches are either retired or have CI repaired to
>> the point of being usable.
>>
>> Specifically, I'm looking at these branches across all Ironic projects:
>> - stable/queens
>> - stable/rocky
>> - stable/stein
>> - stable/train
>> - stable/ussuri
>> - stable/victoria
>>
>> In lieu of any volunteers to maintain the CI, my recommendation for all
>> the branches listed above is that they be marked EOL. If someone wants to
>> volunteer to maintain CI for those branches, they can propose one of the
>> below paths be taken instead:
>>
>> 1 - Someone volunteers to maintain these branches, and also report the
>> status of CI of these older branches periodically on the Ironic whiteboard
>> and in Ironic meetings. If you feel strongly that one of these branches
>> needs to continue to be in service; volunteering in this way is how to save
>> them.
>>
>> 2 - We seriously reduce CI. Basically removing all tempest tests to
>> ensure that CI remains reliable and able to merge emergency or security
>> fixes when needed. In some cases; this still requires CI fixes as some
>> older inspector branches are failing *installing packages* in unit tests. I
>> would still like, in this case, that someone volunteers to ensure the
>> minimalist CI remains happy.
>>
>> My intention is to let this message serve as notice and a waiting period;
>> and if I've not heard any response here or in Monday's Ironic meeting (in 6
>> days), I will begin taking action on retiring these branches.
>>
>> This is simply a start; other branches (including bugfix branches) are
>> also in bad shape in CI, but getting these retired will significantly
>> reduce the surface area of projects and branches to evaluate.
>>
>> I know it's painful to drop support for these branches; but we've
>> provided good EM support for these branches for a long time and by pruning
>> them away, we'll be able to save time to dedicate to other items.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jay Faulkner
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20230530/98dd3e33/attachment.htm>