Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [I18n] Regarding Zanata upgrade plan to 3.9.6 with Xenial: Help is needed

[Clark Boylan]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 01:08 AM, Frank Kloeker wrote:
>  - Original Nachricht 
> Von: Clark Boylan 
> An:  "Ian Y. Choi" , OpenStack Infra
> 
> Datum:   03.12.2016 00:37
> Betreff: Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [I18n] Regarding Zanata upgrade plan to
> 3.9.6
>  with Xenial: Help is needed
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016, at 03:56 PM, Clark Boylan wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016, at 09:49 AM, Ian Y. Choi wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > I18n team currently uses Zanata in translate.openstack.org so frequently
> > 
> > > > as an OpenStack translation platform.
> > > > I really appreciate great help from all contributors, especially infra 
> > > > team members and Zanata development team
> > > > : 
> > > >
> > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack-infra/infra-specs/specs/migrate_to_zana
> > ta.html 
> > > > .
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks to [1], the current deployed Zanata version is 3.7.3.
> > > > During about one year, there were some discussions for Zanata 
> > > > enhancements in many i18n IRC meetings,
> > > > and especially Austin & Barcelona summits [2].
> > > > Zanata development team members kindly listen to such enhancements, and
> > 
> > > > they are actively upgrading Zanata
> > > > with fixing bugs and incorporating cool features, which are very helpful
> > 
> > > > for translators.
> > > > 
> > > > One main obstacle for upgrading Zanata (as far as I know) was that newer
> > 
> > > > versions of Zanata requires Java 8,
> > > > but it is not default on Trusty. To upgrade Zanata, upgrading from 
> > > > Trusty to Xenial for translate.openstack.org is needed
> > > > since default-jre-headless on Trusty is Java 7 and Xenial is Java 8.
> > > > 
> > > > Recently [3] has been merged, so I really hope that i18n team will see 
> > > > newer version of Zanata soon :)
> > > > 
> > > > I18n team discussed Zanata upgrade with pleia2 and clarkb during i18n 
> > > > Barcelona meetup (See number 4 in [4]),
> > > > and the following is my thoughts on appropriate procedures to support 
> > > > Zanata latest version
> > > > (Currently 3.9.6 - [5]):
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Xenial OS test for translate-dev.openstack.org
> > > > : IMO after tests from infra team, [6] will be changed from "# Node-OS:
> > 
> > > > trusty" to "# Node-OS: xenial"
> > > > 
> > > > 2. Using openstackid instead of openstackid-dev for translators to test
> > 
> > > > translate-dev.o.o
> > > > : I uploaded a patch [7].
> > > > 
> > > > 3. Uploading a patch on openstack-infra/puppet-zanata for Zanata 3.9.6
> > > > : [8] is a reference for previous upgrade from Zanata 3.7.2 to 3.7.3
> > > > 
> > > > 4. translate-dev.o.o with Zanata 3.9.6 will be ready => I18n translators
> > 
> > > > will test it :)
> > > > 
> > > > 5. If there will be no error for Zanata 3.9,6, then node upgrade from 
> > > > Trusty to Xenial and Zanata upgrade to 3.9.6
> > > > is needed for translate.openstack.org
> > > > : changing [9] line and also proposing a patch similar to [10] will be 
> > > > needed later.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Since newer version of Zanata is what translators are expecting a lot
> > :)
> > > > ,
> > > > I would like to kindly ask infra team members for the help of reviewing
> > 
> > > > and accomplishing such steps with higher priority.
> > > > 
> > > > @clarkb, would the proposed procedures cover all the things regarding 
> > > > Zanata upgrade?
> > > > If yes, would you share a sort of scheduled plans?
> > > > IMO Zanata development team will kindly help following schedules if 
> > > > there will be some issues which are dependent to Zanata itself.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/240383/
> > > > [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/I18n-Zanata-enhancement
> > > > [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/384239/
> > > > [4] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/barcelona-i18n-meetup
> > > > [5] https://github.com/zanata/zanata-platform/releases
> > > > [6] 
> > > >
> > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/system-config/tree/manifests/s
> > ite.pp#n1282
> > > > [7] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/393405/
> > > > [8] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/239617/1/manifests/init.pp
> > > > [9] 
> > > >
> > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/system-config/tree/manifests/s
> > ite.pp#n1257
> > > > [10] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/232313/
> > > 
> > > Just a quick status update on this. I have updated puppet things so that
> > > we can deploy translate-dev01.openstack.org on Xenial then CNAME
> > > translate-dev.openstack.org to it. (This is part of how we are trying to
> > > deploy services in the future to avoid being tied to a single instance
> > > in our puppetry). This includes running the noop puppet apply test
> > > against Xenial for these nodes on puppet changes as well.
> > > 
> > > All of that has gone relatively well and I just tried to deploy on
> > > Xenial and have run into a few problems. The puppet output [11] 

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [infra] Please add members to novajoin-* groups

[Paul Belanger]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:38:12PM -0500, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> Can you add rcritten at redhat.com and alee at redhat.com to
> novajoin-core and novajoin-release? I thought they had been added during
> the group creation project but apparently not.
> 
I've added rcrit...@redhat.com to both groups, since that was the original owner
of the review request.  You'll now be free to add more users as you see fit.

> regards
> 
> rob
> 
> ___
> OpenStack-Infra mailing list
> OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra

___
OpenStack-Infra mailing list
OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [zuulv3] Zookeeper on CentOS 7

[Brian Stinson]

On Dec 07 16:05, Ian Wienand wrote:
> (I know this isn't the greatest place to discuss packaging, but this
> seems like somewhere we can get interested people together)
> 
> After first looking a year ago (!) I've gone back to have another poke
> at Zookeeper on CentOS 7 packages.  This is going to be required for
> zuulv3.
> 
> As you can see from an attempted build-log [1] there are a bunch of
> requirements.  Some of these are more problematic than others.  The
> following etherpad has a range of info, but here's where I think we
> need to go:
> 
>  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/zookeeper-epel7
> 
> 1) netty is a hard requirement; ZK can't work without it.  This seems
>to be rather bad news, because the dependency chain here is long.
>At [1], I have attempted builds of netty's dependencies; as you can
>see they have some extensive requirements of their own.
> 
>This may actually be quite a bit to untangle, and I think we need
>to focus the discussion firstly on if this can actually be done.
>Without netty, I don't see there's anything further to do.  I have
>filed [2].
> 
> 1a) I'm not clear on what exactly objectweb-pom brings, but it's a
> build-dependency for >F21.  I have filed [3].  It may be a hard
> dependency, but it does currently build at least.
> 
> 2) Ivy is a dependency manager and ivy-local is part of the Fedora
>java packaging infrastructure.  We are not going to get that
>backported.  However, it seems that we could modify the build to
>not use ivy, but hack in dependencies manually [4]
> 
> 3) checkstyle, jdiff, jtoaster all seem to be related to parts of the
>build we can skip such as test-suites, documentation and contrib
>tools.  I *think* that just means we cut bits out of build.xml
> 
> tl;dr -- this is a nightmare really; but if netty and it's
> dependencies are where to start.
> 
> HOWEVER there is another option.  Take the whole upsteram release and
> shoe-horn it into an RPM.  Luckily I searched because someone already
> did that [5] and with a bit of tweaking we can build a package in COPR
> [6].  If you're interested, give it a try and we can iterate on any
> issues.
> 
> Now it's not really "packaged" as such, and obviously not going to be
> officially distributed ... but maybe this will do?
> 
> -i
> 
> [1] 
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ggillies/rdo-newton-extras/epel-7-x86_64/00484851-zookeeper/root.log.gz
> [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402199
> [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402195
> [4] 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2015-November/005705.html
> [5] https://github.com/id/zookeeper-el7-rpm/
> [6] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/iwienand/zookeeper-el7
> 
> ___
> OpenStack-Infra mailing list
> OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra

There may be a couple of folks interested in helping if you'd like to
tackle this in a CentOS Special Interest Group:

https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2016-December/015447.html

I believe the Software Factory folks are interested in Zuul v2 for now,
but that SIG (currently in the proposal stage) might be a good place to
collaborate/build/deliver other components (v3?) and dependencies going
forward. 

Cheers!

--
Brian Stinson

___
OpenStack-Infra mailing list
OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra