>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:05 AM Alfredo Moralejo Alonso >> <amora...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> What do you think about this plan?, is there any reason to keep CentOS 7 >>> artificially consistent and promoting at this point of the transition to >>> CentOS 8?
There's a TripleO patch [1] blocked as a result. The patch enables a new Glance feature that merged in Ussuri but we're unable to get it tested by the TripleO CI system because we're pinned to such an old version of Glance in the CentOS 7 container. I'm personally OK with the plan, provided that exceptions can be requested when needed for a project. So in this case I'm asking for the first instance of such an exception. Could the cent7 Glance container be updated to have a newer version of Glance containing this change [2]. Thanks, John [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:glance-multistore [2] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/705229/ On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 2:49 PM Wesley Hayutin <whayu...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:56 AM Mike Burns <mbu...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> So, if I understand this right... >> >> * We're keeping the centos7 and centos8 versions of Ussuri consistent >> * There is no actual build of the latest commits built on either centos7 or >> centos8 >> * There is no possible way to have an Ussuri release on Centos7 >> >> Assuming the above is true, I would say to turn off all the centos7 stuff >> and focus all effort on getting Ussuri latest built on centos8. There does >> not appear to be any value in continuing work on centos7 if we can't >> actually deliver it at the end of the day. >> >> Mike > > > Agreeing and building on what Mike said.. this certainly raises the priority > on CentOS-8. There are still tripleo patches incoming that will not be > pinned ( I think ) > Having a better understanding here of what has been pinned and what is in > progress w/o consulting rdo-info all the time would be handy. > > I think the check, gate and promotion jobs for centos-7 ussuri need to stay > in place, however they should just always pass which would lower the amount > of work w/ regards to centos-7 but not eliminate it. It could also be the > case that tripleo breaks itself from time to time, but I'm sure Emilien would > never let that happen as he's a robot and not human. > > I digress > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:05 AM Alfredo Moralejo Alonso >> <amora...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd like to open a discussion about the status of RDO Ussuri repositories >>> on CentOS7. >>> >>> As you know RDO and upstream teams (kolla, puppet-openstack, TripleO, >>> TripleO CI, etc...) have been working to switch to CentOS8 during last few >>> weeks. >>> >>> In order to make the transition easier from CentOS 7 to CentOS 8, RDO is >>> still maintaining Trunk repos consistent for both CentOS 7/Python 2 and >>> CentOS 8/Python 3. As OpenStack projects have been dropping support for >>> Python 2, we've started pinning them to the last commit working with Python >>> 2[1], we were expecting that transition will finish soon but it's still >>> going on. Over time, the number of pinned packages has been growing >>> including services and Oslo libraries where we can't follow >>> upper-constraints anymore[2]. Recently, Kolla has removed support for >>> CentOS 7 so i doubt it makes sense to keep pinning packages to keep RDO >>> Trunk consistent artificially and continue running promotion pipelines on a >>> repo with so many outdated packages. Also, pinning these projects makes >>> that changes needed for CentOS 8 will not be in RDO and would need to be >>> backported manually to each package. My proposal is: >>> >>> - Unpin all packages in Ussuri to follow master trunk, or versions in >>> upper-constraints (for clients and libraries). >>> - RDO Ussuri on CentOS 7 repo consistent link will not move anymore (so no >>> more promotions based on it). >>> - We will keep running centos7-master DLRN builder, so that packages still >>> builing with Python 2 will be available in current repo [3] to be used by >>> teams needing them until migration to CentOS 8 is finished everywhere. >>> - Projects which already have CentOS 8 jobs gating in master branch can >>> remove CentOS 7 ones. >>> >>> We understand this can add some pressure on moving to CentOS8 to the teams >>> working on it, but I'd say it's already a priority and it's justified at >>> this stage. >>> >>> What do you think about this plan?, is there any reason to keep CentOS 7 >>> artificially consistent and promoting at this point of the transition to >>> CentOS 8? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> [1] https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/q/topic:pin-py2 >>> [2] https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/24796/ >>> [3] http://trunk.rdoproject.org/centos7-master/current >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dev mailing list >>> d...@lists.rdoproject.org >>> http://lists.rdoproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >>> >>> To unsubscribe: dev-unsubscr...@lists.rdoproject.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev mailing list >> d...@lists.rdoproject.org >> http://lists.rdoproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> >> To unsubscribe: dev-unsubscr...@lists.rdoproject.org > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@lists.rdoproject.org > http://lists.rdoproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > To unsubscribe: users-unsubscr...@lists.rdoproject.org _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.rdoproject.org http://lists.rdoproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users To unsubscribe: users-unsubscr...@lists.rdoproject.org
