Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Do we want to remove Nova-bm support?
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 15:47 +1100, Steve Kowalik wrote: Hi all, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about all of the code paths in tripleo-incubator that check $USE_IRONIC -eq 0 -- that is, use nova-baremetal rather than Ironic. We do not check nova-bm support in CI, haven't for at least a month, and I'm concerned that parts of it may be slowly bit-rotting. I think our documentation is fairly clear that nova-baremetal is deprecated and Ironic is the way forward, and I know it flies in the face of backwards-compatibility, but do we want to bite the bullet and remove nova-bm support? I'd vote yes. Given that our CI jobs all currently use Ironic I think it is safe to move forwards and remove the old Nova BM configuration. Dan Cheers, ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Do we want to remove Nova-bm support?
Dan Prince said on Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 08:09:56AM -0500: face of backwards-compatibility, but do we want to bite the bullet and remove nova-bm support? +1, FWIW. Alexis -- Nova Engineer, HP Cloud. AKA lealexis, lxsli. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Do we want to remove Nova-bm support?
+1, FWIW. Alexis +1 This is similar to the no merge.py discussion. If something isn't covered by CI, it's going to grow stale pretty quickly. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Do we want to remove Nova-bm support?
Hi AFAIK there are no products out there using tripleonova-bm, but maybe a quick post to -operators asking if this will ruin anyone's day, would be good? Cheers, -- Chris Jones On 4 Dec 2014, at 04:47, Steve Kowalik ste...@wedontsleep.org wrote: Hi all, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about all of the code paths in tripleo-incubator that check $USE_IRONIC -eq 0 -- that is, use nova-baremetal rather than Ironic. We do not check nova-bm support in CI, haven't for at least a month, and I'm concerned that parts of it may be slowly bit-rotting. I think our documentation is fairly clear that nova-baremetal is deprecated and Ironic is the way forward, and I know it flies in the face of backwards-compatibility, but do we want to bite the bullet and remove nova-bm support? Cheers, -- Steve Oh, in case you got covered in that Repulsion Gel, here's some advice the lab boys gave me: [paper rustling] DO NOT get covered in the Repulsion Gel. - Cave Johnson, CEO of Aperture Science ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Do we want to remove Nova-bm support?
FWIW, I think the correct thing to do here is to get our Juno jobs up and running and have one of them verify the nova-bm code paths for this cycle, and then remove it next cycle. That said, I have no idea how close we are to actually having Juno jobs and I agree that we have no idea if the nova-bm code actually works anymore (although that applies to backwards compat as a whole too). I guess I'm inclined to just leave it though. AFAIK the nova-bm code isn't hurting anything, and if it does happen to be working and have a user then removing it would break them for no good reason. If it's not working then it's not working and nobody's going to accidentally start using it. The only real downside of leaving it is if it is working and someone would happen to override our defaults, ignore all the deprecation warnings, and start using it anyway. I don't see that as a big concern. But I'm not super attached to nova-bm either, so just my 2 cents. -Ben On 12/03/2014 10:47 PM, Steve Kowalik wrote: Hi all, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about all of the code paths in tripleo-incubator that check $USE_IRONIC -eq 0 -- that is, use nova-baremetal rather than Ironic. We do not check nova-bm support in CI, haven't for at least a month, and I'm concerned that parts of it may be slowly bit-rotting. I think our documentation is fairly clear that nova-baremetal is deprecated and Ironic is the way forward, and I know it flies in the face of backwards-compatibility, but do we want to bite the bullet and remove nova-bm support? Cheers, ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Do we want to remove Nova-bm support?
Excerpts from Ben Nemec's message of 2014-12-04 11:12:10 -0800: FWIW, I think the correct thing to do here is to get our Juno jobs up and running and have one of them verify the nova-bm code paths for this cycle, and then remove it next cycle. That said, I have no idea how close we are to actually having Juno jobs and I agree that we have no idea if the nova-bm code actually works anymore (although that applies to backwards compat as a whole too). I guess I'm inclined to just leave it though. AFAIK the nova-bm code isn't hurting anything, and if it does happen to be working and have a user then removing it would break them for no good reason. If it's not working then it's not working and nobody's going to accidentally start using it. The only real downside of leaving it is if it is working and someone would happen to override our defaults, ignore all the deprecation warnings, and start using it anyway. I don't see that as a big concern. But I'm not super attached to nova-bm either, so just my 2 cents. I think this is overly cautious, but I can't think of a moderately cautious plan, so let's just land deprecation warning messages in the image builds and devtest scripts. I don't know if there's much more we can do without running the risk of yanking the rug out from some silent user out there. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Do we want to remove Nova-bm support?
Hi all, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about all of the code paths in tripleo-incubator that check $USE_IRONIC -eq 0 -- that is, use nova-baremetal rather than Ironic. We do not check nova-bm support in CI, haven't for at least a month, and I'm concerned that parts of it may be slowly bit-rotting. I think our documentation is fairly clear that nova-baremetal is deprecated and Ironic is the way forward, and I know it flies in the face of backwards-compatibility, but do we want to bite the bullet and remove nova-bm support? Cheers, -- Steve Oh, in case you got covered in that Repulsion Gel, here's some advice the lab boys gave me: [paper rustling] DO NOT get covered in the Repulsion Gel. - Cave Johnson, CEO of Aperture Science ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
