On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Devananda van der Veen <[email protected]> wrote: > Responding to your points out of order, since that makes more sense to me > right now ... > >> Since currently DIB claims to be backwards compatible, we just need to >> leave master backwards compatible with Kilo and Liberty Ironic, which >> means not deleting the bash ramdisk element. If Ironic wants to remove >> the bash ramdisk support from master, then it ought to be able to do >> so. > > > Yes, we'd like to remove support (read: code) from Ironic for the bash > ramdisk. It was deprecated in Liberty, and I'd like to remove it soon (no > later than once Newton opens). > > >> >> What if you removed the code from Ironic, but left the element in DIB, >> with a note that it only works with stable/liberty and earlier >> versions of Ironic? > > > Sure, except ... > >> >> >> Could we then: >> >> gate master DIB changes on an Ironic stable/liberty job that uses the >> bash ramdisk - this would catch any regressions in DIB that break the >> bash ramdisk > > > Yup. We could do this. > >> >> gate master DIB changes on an Ironic master job - this is what >> gate-tempest-dsvm-ironic-pxe_ssh-dib is already doing (I think). > > > This, we could not do. > > Once we remove the support for the bash ramdisk from ironic/master, we will > not be able to test the "deploy-baremetal" element in dib/master against > ironic/master. We will only be able to test DIB with the "ironic-agent" > element against ironic/master. However, since some users of dib still rely > on the bash ramdisk (eg, because they're using older versions of Ironic) we > understand the need to keep that element supported within dib. > >> >> >> Is that a valid option, and would it remove the desire for a stable >> branch of DIB? >> >> >> We currently say that DIB is backwards compatible and doesn't use >> stable branches. If there's a desire to change that, I think that's >> certainly open for discussion. But I don't think we're in a situtation >> where it's preventing us from moving forward with removing the bash >> ramdisk code from Ironic aiui, but I might be misunderstanding. I also >> think that having a stable branch sends the message that master isn't >> backwards compatible. If that's not the message, why do we need the >> stable branch? >> > > We believe we need the stable branch because we believe we should test > master-master for "ironic-agent" and stable-stable for "deploy-baremetal". > > On the other hand, we could test master-stable (dib-ironic) for the > "deploy-baremetal" element. If we did that, then we don't need a stable > branch of dib.
Yes, this ^^ is what I'm proposing, or was trying to anyway. The master-master (dib-ironic) gate uses ipa, the master-stable gate would use the bash ramdisk. -- -- James Slagle -- __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
