Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [stable] Suggestion to remove stable/liberty and stable branches support from ironic-python-agent

2016-02-24 Thread Alan Pevec 
> The tricky bit is that RDO does not include patches in our packages
> built from trunk (trunk.rdoproject.org), and for liberty we first check
> if stable/liberty exists, then fallback to master if it does not. So the
> presence of stable/liberty that is not actually the recommended way to
> build IPA for liberty is a bit not ideal for us.

Trunk builder will first use branch specified per project per release,
and we can now override that easily in rdoinfo.

> All of that said, I totally understand not wanting to delete a branch.
> Especially since I think I am the one who Dmitry is referring to asking
> for it. (Though I think what I wanted was releases which is subtly
> different)

that goes under "for historical reasons" :)

> I think there are some hacks I could make in our trunk builder if I at
> least have a ML post like this as justification. I am not 100% sure that
> is possible though.

No hacks needed and I've referenced this ML post:
https://github.com/redhat-openstack/rdoinfo/pull/158
Please let me know if that's what you wanted, to avoid further confusion :)

Cheers,
Alan

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [stable] Suggestion to remove stable/liberty and stable branches support from ironic-python-agent

2016-02-19 Thread Dmitry Tantsur 

On 02/19/2016 01:29 PM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:

Hi,

By removing stable branches you mean stable branches for mitaka and
newer releases or that includes stable/liberty which already exist as
well?

I think the latter is more complicated, I don't think we should drop
stable/liberty like that because other people (apart from TripleO) may
also depend on that. I mean, it wouldn't be very "stable" if stable
branches were deleted before their supported phases.


Yeah, this is a valid concern. Maybe we should recommend RDO somehow 
ignore stable/liberty, and then no longer have stable branches..




But that said, I'm +1 to not have stable branches for newer releases.

Cheers,
Lucas

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Dmitry Tantsur  wrote:

Hi all!

Initially we didn't plan on having stable branches for IPA at all. Our gate
is using the prebuilt image generated from the master branch even on
Ironic/Inspector stable branches. The branch in question was added by
request of RDO folks, and today I got a request from trown to remove it:

 dtantsur: btw, what do you think the chances are that IPA gets rid
of stable branch?
 I'm +1 on that, because currently only tripleo is using this
stable branch, our own gates are using tarball from master
 s/tarball/prebuilt image/
 cool, from RDO perspective, I would prefer to have master package in
our liberty delorean server, but I cant do that (without major hacks) if
there is a stable/liberty branch
 LIO support being the main reason
 fwiw, I have tested master IPA on liberty and it works great

So I suggest we drop stable branches from IPA. This won't affect the Ironic
gate in any regard, as we don't use stable IPA there anyway, as I mentioned
before. As we do know already, we'll keep IPA compatible with all supported
Ironic and Inspector versions.

Opinions?

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev




__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [stable] Suggestion to remove stable/liberty and stable branches support from ironic-python-agent

2016-02-19 Thread John Trowbridge 


On 02/19/2016 07:29 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> By removing stable branches you mean stable branches for mitaka and
> newer releases or that includes stable/liberty which already exist as
> well?
> 
> I think the latter is more complicated, I don't think we should drop
> stable/liberty like that because other people (apart from TripleO) may
> also depend on that. I mean, it wouldn't be very "stable" if stable
> branches were deleted before their supported phases.
>
I would argue it is also not very stable if there is not testing against
it :).

For the RDO use case in particular, it is about having LIO support in
liberty, so that it is feature complete with the bash ramdisk. Then the
bash ramdisk can return to the bit bucket.

The tricky bit is that RDO does not include patches in our packages
built from trunk (trunk.rdoproject.org), and for liberty we first check
if stable/liberty exists, then fallback to master if it does not. So the
presence of stable/liberty that is not actually the recommended way to
build IPA for liberty is a bit not ideal for us.

All of that said, I totally understand not wanting to delete a branch.
Especially since I think I am the one who Dmitry is referring to asking
for it. (Though I think what I wanted was releases which is subtly
different)

I think there are some hacks I could make in our trunk builder if I at
least have a ML post like this as justification. I am not 100% sure that
is possible though.

> But that said, I'm +1 to not have stable branches for newer releases.
> 
> Cheers,
> Lucas
> 
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Dmitry Tantsur  wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> Initially we didn't plan on having stable branches for IPA at all. Our gate
>> is using the prebuilt image generated from the master branch even on
>> Ironic/Inspector stable branches. The branch in question was added by
>> request of RDO folks, and today I got a request from trown to remove it:
>>
>>  dtantsur: btw, what do you think the chances are that IPA gets rid
>> of stable branch?
>>  I'm +1 on that, because currently only tripleo is using this
>> stable branch, our own gates are using tarball from master
>>  s/tarball/prebuilt image/
>>  cool, from RDO perspective, I would prefer to have master package in
>> our liberty delorean server, but I cant do that (without major hacks) if
>> there is a stable/liberty branch
>>  LIO support being the main reason
>>  fwiw, I have tested master IPA on liberty and it works great
>>
>> So I suggest we drop stable branches from IPA. This won't affect the Ironic
>> gate in any regard, as we don't use stable IPA there anyway, as I mentioned
>> before. As we do know already, we'll keep IPA compatible with all supported
>> Ironic and Inspector versions.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] [stable] Suggestion to remove stable/liberty and stable branches support from ironic-python-agent

2016-02-19 Thread Lucas Alvares Gomes 
Hi,

By removing stable branches you mean stable branches for mitaka and
newer releases or that includes stable/liberty which already exist as
well?

I think the latter is more complicated, I don't think we should drop
stable/liberty like that because other people (apart from TripleO) may
also depend on that. I mean, it wouldn't be very "stable" if stable
branches were deleted before their supported phases.

But that said, I'm +1 to not have stable branches for newer releases.

Cheers,
Lucas

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Dmitry Tantsur  wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Initially we didn't plan on having stable branches for IPA at all. Our gate
> is using the prebuilt image generated from the master branch even on
> Ironic/Inspector stable branches. The branch in question was added by
> request of RDO folks, and today I got a request from trown to remove it:
>
>  dtantsur: btw, what do you think the chances are that IPA gets rid
> of stable branch?
>  I'm +1 on that, because currently only tripleo is using this
> stable branch, our own gates are using tarball from master
>  s/tarball/prebuilt image/
>  cool, from RDO perspective, I would prefer to have master package in
> our liberty delorean server, but I cant do that (without major hacks) if
> there is a stable/liberty branch
>  LIO support being the main reason
>  fwiw, I have tested master IPA on liberty and it works great
>
> So I suggest we drop stable branches from IPA. This won't affect the Ironic
> gate in any regard, as we don't use stable IPA there anyway, as I mentioned
> before. As we do know already, we'll keep IPA compatible with all supported
> Ironic and Inspector versions.
>
> Opinions?
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [ironic] [stable] Suggestion to remove stable/liberty and stable branches support from ironic-python-agent

2016-02-19 Thread Dmitry Tantsur 

Hi all!

Initially we didn't plan on having stable branches for IPA at all. Our 
gate is using the prebuilt image generated from the master branch even 
on Ironic/Inspector stable branches. The branch in question was added by 
request of RDO folks, and today I got a request from trown to remove it:


 dtantsur: btw, what do you think the chances are that IPA gets 
rid of stable branch?
 I'm +1 on that, because currently only tripleo is using this 
stable branch, our own gates are using tarball from master

 s/tarball/prebuilt image/
 cool, from RDO perspective, I would prefer to have master 
package in our liberty delorean server, but I cant do that (without 
major hacks) if there is a stable/liberty branch

 LIO support being the main reason
 fwiw, I have tested master IPA on liberty and it works great

So I suggest we drop stable branches from IPA. This won't affect the 
Ironic gate in any regard, as we don't use stable IPA there anyway, as I 
mentioned before. As we do know already, we'll keep IPA compatible with 
all supported Ironic and Inspector versions.


Opinions?

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev