[rdo-list] Python-shade in RDO

[Haïkel]

2016-08-29 1:19 GMT+02:00 Graeme Gillies <ggillies at redhat.com>:
> On 26/08/16 16:31, Alan Pevec wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2016 07:09, "Graeme Gillies" <ggillies at redhat.com
>> <mailto:ggillies at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry I'm a bit confused here, are you actually saying that shade can't
>>> be in RDO because it lives in a slightly different git repo location, a
>>> location by which, is still referenced as perfectly valid for openstack
>>> projects in Big tent
>>>
>>>
>> https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/projects.yaml
>>>
>>> I'm also confused why you think the clients should also be moved out of
>>> rdo into another repo as well. This is just splitting the repos up
>>> needlessly isn't it? Shade, like oslo and other Openstack libraries,
>>> should be part of RDO.
>>
>> Problem with Shade is that it'd branchless so putting it into one RDO
>> release repo won't work. That's why separate repo is suggested, which
>> would also solve the other issue Haikel mentioned: upstream infra
>> enables RDO repo only to get openvswitch which is not in EL7 base, so we
>> would put that in rdo-extras.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
>
> Sorry just so I am 100% clear here, in order for python-shade to just go
> into RDO it would need to have stable release branches, which I would
> assume match the standard Openstack release naming (liberty, mitaka, etc).
>
> Pulling back a bit, can we talk about the charter regarding RDO and
> packaging Openstack projects (which fall under big tent)?
>
> Under big tent, projects are not beholden to the explicit 6 month
> release cycle that has been mandated in the past. Most projects choose
> to stick with it, but there are a couple which don't.
>
> The official governance documentation [1] references projects can have
> the following release management
>
> release:cycle-with-milestones
> release:cycle-with-intermediary
> release:cycle-trailing
> release:independent
>
> The ones that are probably most interesting to this discussion are
> release:cycle-trailing and release:independent (of which shade uses).
>
> Can we get the packaging documentation modified to include an official
> policy on how the projects with the different release cycles are to be
> treated? I don't believe that projects with release:independent should
> be excluded from RDO, in fact, they definitely aren't because we package
> and ship rally as part of RDO and that uses release:independent.
>

(CC'ing Paul, as I would like to hear openstack-infra feedback on that point)

Yes, we will discuss that item during our next meeting.
If there's agreement to create a rdo-extras repository, projects
tagged release:independent are candidate to be shipped in that
repository.

What we need to figure out is what *exactly* it should contains,
provisionnally, it is:
* shade + latest clients from stable branches
* projects tagged release:independent
* minor utilities only available through EPEL and useful for
openstack-infra (should it be a separate repo?)

Regards,
H.

> Regards,
>
> Graeme
>
> [1] https://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/
>
> --
> Graeme Gillies
> Principal Systems Administrator
> Openstack Infrastructure
> Red Hat Australia