[Starlingx-discuss] repo restructuring
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2]. The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving. We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6. My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review. Thanks for your co-operation. Scott Little [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/ [2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166 [3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow). Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice. I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates. After everything has merged, you'll need to ... 1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch. 2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required. Scott Little On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
Reminder Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice. Thanks for your cooperation. Scott On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow).
Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice.
I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates.
After everything has merged, you'll need to ...
1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch.
2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required.
Scott Little
On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
A concern was raised that repos named 'puppet' and 'kubernetes' might imply forks of those projects. Content wise, it's clearly not the case. But it might be used in anti-StarlingX FUD. Any objections to renaming the repos 'stx-puppet' and 'containers' instead? Scott On 2019-09-04 9:50 a.m., Scott Little wrote:
Reminder
Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Scott
On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow).
Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice.
I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates.
After everything has merged, you'll need to ...
1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch.
2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required.
Scott Little
On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
On 04/09/2019 20:35, Scott Little wrote:
A concern was raised that repos named 'puppet' and 'kubernetes' might imply forks of those projects.
Content wise, it's clearly not the case. But it might be used in anti-StarlingX FUD.
A valid concern that shall trigger a change in proposed name. Your new proposition looks OK to me but any non contentious name could do. -- Dominig ar Foll Senior Software Architect Intel Open Source Technology Centre
+1 From: Scott Little [mailto:scott.little@windriver.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 2:35 PM To: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring A concern was raised that repos named 'puppet' and 'kubernetes' might imply forks of those projects. Content wise, it's clearly not the case. But it might be used in anti-StarlingX FUD. Any objections to renaming the repos 'stx-puppet' and 'containers' instead? Scott On 2019-09-04 9:50 a.m., Scott Little wrote: Reminder Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice. Thanks for your cooperation. Scott On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote: Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow). Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice. I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates. After everything has merged, you'll need to ... 1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch. 2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required. Scott Little On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote: The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2]. The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving. We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6. My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review. Thanks for your co-operation. Scott Little [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/ [2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166 [3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw... _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
I'll need to update the governance file reference/tsc/projects.yaml We need to identify project and technical leads for the new repos. compile config-files helm-charts kubernetes monitor-armada-app monitoring openstack-armada-app platform-armada-app puppet utilities On 2019-09-04 9:50 a.m., Scott Little wrote:
Reminder
Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Scott
On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow).
Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice.
I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates.
After everything has merged, you'll need to ...
1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch.
2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required.
Scott Little
On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:25 AM Scott Little <scott.little@windriver.com> wrote:
We need to identify project and technical leads for the new repos.
Teams can own multiple repos, I think the determination needed is what existing teams own which repos and which of these should be owned by new teams. dt
For almost all of these, shouldn’t they just inherit the PL/TL from the repo they were branched from? Bart From: Scott Little [mailto:scott.little@windriver.com] Sent: September 5, 2019 10:24 AM To: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring I'll need to update the governance file reference/tsc/projects.yaml We need to identify project and technical leads for the new repos. compile config-files helm-charts kubernetes monitor-armada-app monitoring openstack-armada-app platform-armada-app puppet utilities On 2019-09-04 9:50 a.m., Scott Little wrote: Reminder Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice. Thanks for your cooperation. Scott On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote: Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow). Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice. I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates. After everything has merged, you'll need to ... 1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch. 2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required. Scott Little On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote: The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2]. The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving. We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6. My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review. Thanks for your co-operation. Scott Little [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/ [2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166 [3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw... _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
compile (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold config-files (derived from from integ) Governance group:distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold helm-charts (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung kubernetes (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold monitor-armada-app (derived from upstream and config) ... Note: upstream is not listed in governance! Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung monitoring (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold openstack-armada-app (derived from upstream and config) ... Note: upstream is not listed in governance! Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung platform-armada-app (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung puppet (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung utilities (derived mostly from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold On 2019-09-05 10:41 a.m., Wensley, Barton wrote:
For almost all of these, shouldn’t they just inherit the PL/TL from the repo they were branched from?
Bart
*From:*Scott Little [mailto:scott.little@windriver.com] *Sent:* September 5, 2019 10:24 AM *To:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring
I'll need to update the governance file reference/tsc/projects.yaml
We need to identify project and technical leads for the new repos.
compile config-files helm-charts kubernetes monitor-armada-app monitoring openstack-armada-app platform-armada-app puppet utilities
On 2019-09-04 9:50 a.m., Scott Little wrote:
Reminder
Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Scott
On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow).
Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice.
I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates.
After everything has merged, you'll need to ...
1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch.
2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required.
Scott Little
On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
Mostly seems right, should the containers (nee: k8s) be part of the Containers team instead of distro? I don't think we have a container's project in governance, but it would seem we should. Sau! On 9/5/19 9:44 AM, Scott Little wrote:
compile (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
config-files (derived from from integ) Governance group:distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
helm-charts (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
kubernetes (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
monitor-armada-app (derived from upstream and config) ... Note: upstream is not listed in governance! Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
monitoring (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
openstack-armada-app (derived from upstream and config) ... Note: upstream is not listed in governance! Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
platform-armada-app (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
puppet (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
utilities (derived mostly from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
On 2019-09-05 10:41 a.m., Wensley, Barton wrote:
For almost all of these, shouldn’t they just inherit the PL/TL from the repo they were branched from?
Bart
*From:*Scott Little [mailto:scott.little@windriver.com] *Sent:* September 5, 2019 10:24 AM *To:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring
I'll need to update the governance file reference/tsc/projects.yaml
We need to identify project and technical leads for the new repos.
compile config-files helm-charts kubernetes monitor-armada-app monitoring openstack-armada-app platform-armada-app puppet utilities
On 2019-09-04 9:50 a.m., Scott Little wrote:
Reminder
Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Scott
On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow).
Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice.
I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates.
After everything has merged, you'll need to ...
1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch.
2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required.
Scott Little
On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
I will be updating the governance as per the TSC call this morning Brent -----Original Message----- From: Saul Wold [mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com] Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:00 PM To: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring Mostly seems right, should the containers (nee: k8s) be part of the Containers team instead of distro? I don't think we have a container's project in governance, but it would seem we should. Sau! On 9/5/19 9:44 AM, Scott Little wrote:
compile (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
config-files (derived from from integ) Governance group:distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
helm-charts (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
kubernetes (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
monitor-armada-app (derived from upstream and config) ... Note: upstream is not listed in governance! Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
monitoring (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
openstack-armada-app (derived from upstream and config) ... Note: upstream is not listed in governance! Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
platform-armada-app (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
puppet (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
utilities (derived mostly from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
On 2019-09-05 10:41 a.m., Wensley, Barton wrote:
For almost all of these, shouldn’t they just inherit the PL/TL from the repo they were branched from?
Bart
*From:*Scott Little [mailto:scott.little@windriver.com] *Sent:* September 5, 2019 10:24 AM *To:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring
I'll need to update the governance file reference/tsc/projects.yaml
We need to identify project and technical leads for the new repos.
compile config-files helm-charts kubernetes monitor-armada-app monitoring openstack-armada-app platform-armada-app puppet utilities
On 2019-09-04 9:50 a.m., Scott Little wrote:
Reminder
Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Scott
On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow).
Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice.
I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates.
After everything has merged, you'll need to ...
1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch.
2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required.
Scott Little
On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166
[3]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6E VF6TDBwNR9TQik/edit#gid=1697053891
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
I'm reviewing the Project List [1]. We used to have a distro.openstack project and a distro.nonopenstack project. Now I see a Distro project. Did we merge them? I think we can/should if we haven’t. The project Wiki page [2] lists several projects that are not on the list: P2->P3, Zuul, DevStack & StarlingX-in-a-box. I don't think we need these as separate projects anymore. Should we remove them from the Wiki? Brucej [1] https://docs.starlingx.io/governance/reference/tsc/projects/index.html [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StarlingX -----Original Message----- From: Rowsell, Brent [mailto:Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com] Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 10:03 AM To: Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring I will be updating the governance as per the TSC call this morning Brent -----Original Message----- From: Saul Wold [mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com] Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:00 PM To: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring Mostly seems right, should the containers (nee: k8s) be part of the Containers team instead of distro? I don't think we have a container's project in governance, but it would seem we should. Sau! On 9/5/19 9:44 AM, Scott Little wrote:
compile (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
config-files (derived from from integ) Governance group:distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
helm-charts (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
kubernetes (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
monitor-armada-app (derived from upstream and config) ... Note: upstream is not listed in governance! Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
monitoring (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
openstack-armada-app (derived from upstream and config) ... Note: upstream is not listed in governance! Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
platform-armada-app (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
puppet (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
utilities (derived mostly from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
On 2019-09-05 10:41 a.m., Wensley, Barton wrote:
For almost all of these, shouldn’t they just inherit the PL/TL from the repo they were branched from?
Bart
*From:*Scott Little [mailto:scott.little@windriver.com] *Sent:* September 5, 2019 10:24 AM *To:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring
I'll need to update the governance file reference/tsc/projects.yaml
We need to identify project and technical leads for the new repos.
compile config-files helm-charts kubernetes monitor-armada-app monitoring openstack-armada-app platform-armada-app puppet utilities
On 2019-09-04 9:50 a.m., Scott Little wrote:
Reminder
Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Scott
On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow).
Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice.
I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates.
After everything has merged, you'll need to ...
1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch.
2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required.
Scott Little
On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166
[3]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6E VF6TDBwNR9TQik/edit#gid=1697053891
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
Scott: I have corrected the ones for containers as well as the monitoring one - see below. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Saul Wold [mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2019 1:00 PM To: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring Mostly seems right, should the containers (nee: k8s) be part of the Containers team instead of distro? I don't think we have a container's project in governance, but it would seem we should. Sau! On 9/5/19 9:44 AM, Scott Little wrote:
compile (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
config-files (derived from from integ) Governance group:distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
helm-charts (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung [FM]: This is containers. So PL: Frank Miller TL: Brent Rowsell
kubernetes (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold [FM]: This is containers. So PL: Frank Miller TL: Brent Rowsell
monitor-armada-app (derived from upstream and config) ... Note: upstream is not listed in governance! Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung [FM]: This is containers. So PL: Frank Miller TL: Brent Rowsell
monitoring (derived from from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold [FM]: These files were added mostly by Eric MacDonald and more closely align with stx-metal. So PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: Eric MacDonald
openstack-armada-app (derived from upstream and config) ... Note: upstream is not listed in governance! Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung [FM]: This is containers. So PL: Frank Miller TL: Brent Rowsell
platform-armada-app (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung [FM]: This is containers. So PL: Frank Miller TL: Brent Rowsell
puppet (derived from config) Governance group: config PL: Dariush Eslimi TL: John Kung
utilities (derived mostly from integ) Governance group: distro PL: Cindy Xie TL: Saul Wold
On 2019-09-05 10:41 a.m., Wensley, Barton wrote:
For almost all of these, shouldn’t they just inherit the PL/TL from the repo they were branched from?
Bart
*From:*Scott Little [mailto:scott.little@windriver.com] *Sent:* September 5, 2019 10:24 AM *To:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring
I'll need to update the governance file reference/tsc/projects.yaml
We need to identify project and technical leads for the new repos.
compile config-files helm-charts kubernetes monitor-armada-app monitoring openstack-armada-app platform-armada-app puppet utilities
On 2019-09-04 9:50 a.m., Scott Little wrote:
Reminder
Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Scott
On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow).
Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice.
I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates.
After everything has merged, you'll need to ...
1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch.
2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required.
Scott Little
On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166
[3]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6E VF6TDBwNR9TQik/edit#gid=1697053891
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
I have set up an initial set of core reviewers as follows. We can adjust going forward. starlingx-compile-core starlingx-config-files-core starlingx-utilities-core Bob Church robert.church@windriver.com Brent Rowsell brent.rowsell@windriver.com Don Penney don.penney@windriver.com Erich Cordoba erich.cordoba.malibran@intel.com Saul Wold sgw@linux.intel.com Scott Little scott.little@windriver.com yong hu yong.hu@intel.com starlingx-containers-core Bart Wensley barton.wensley@windriver.com Don Penney don.penney@windriver.com Jerry Sun jerry.sun@windriver.com starlingx-helm-charts-core starlingx-monitor-armada-app-core starlingx-openstack-armada-app-core starlingx-platform-armada-app-core Bob Church robert.church@windriver.com Don Penney don.penney@windriver.com Angie Wang angie.wang@windriver.com Chris Friesen chris.friesen@windriver.com starlingx-monitoring-core Don Penney don.penney@windriver.com Eric MacDonald eric.macdonald@windriver.com John Kung john.kung@windriver.com Tao Liu tao.liu@windriver.com starlingx-stx-puppet-core Al Bailey al.bailey@windriver.com Bart Wensley barton.wensley@windriver.com Bob Church robert.church@windriver.com Chris Friesen chris.friesen@windriver.com Don Penney don.penney@windriver.com John Kung john.kung@windriver.com On 2019-09-05 10:41 a.m., Wensley, Barton wrote:
For almost all of these, shouldn’t they just inherit the PL/TL from the repo they were branched from?
Bart
*From:*Scott Little [mailto:scott.little@windriver.com] *Sent:* September 5, 2019 10:24 AM *To:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring
I'll need to update the governance file reference/tsc/projects.yaml
We need to identify project and technical leads for the new repos.
compile config-files helm-charts kubernetes monitor-armada-app monitoring openstack-armada-app platform-armada-app puppet utilities
On 2019-09-04 9:50 a.m., Scott Little wrote:
Reminder
Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Scott
On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow).
Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice.
I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates.
After everything has merged, you'll need to ...
1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch.
2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required.
Scott Little
On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
We have a successful ISO build on CENGN. I will be launching a second build to test docker image creation. I still recommend we stay frozen for one more day while we await a sanity result. You can however start looking at the new code structure. A warning however. The paths to our most active repos has changed. The 'stx-' prefix has been dropped from must repos. e.g. cgcs-root/stx/stx-integ is now just cgcs-root/stx/integ. What this meens is that a 'repo sync --force-sync' will delete cgcs-root/stx/stx-integ and create cgcs-root/stx/integ from scratch. It won't just move the repo to the new install path. Deleting the old path mean any work you may have saved in a side branch or in stash will be gone! I strongly recommend you do one of two things. 1) Back up your work somewhere outside of the directory structure controlled by the repo tool before you 'repo sync ...' 2) Set up a new root directory and start fresh with 'repo init ...' and 'repo sync ...' ________________________________ From: Scott Little [scott.little@windriver.com] Sent: September 4, 2019 9:50 AM To: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring Reminder Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice. Thanks for your cooperation. Scott On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote: Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow). Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice. I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates. After everything has merged, you'll need to ... 1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch. 2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required. Scott Little On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote: The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2]. The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving. We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6. My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review. Thanks for your co-operation. Scott Little [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/ [2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166 [3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw... _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
The docker image build was also successful. Scott On 2019-09-06 12:19 a.m., Little, Scott wrote:
We have a successful ISO build on CENGN. I will be launching a second build to test docker image creation.
I still recommend we stay frozen for one more day while we await a sanity result. You can however start looking at the new code structure.
A warning however. The paths to our most active repos has changed. The 'stx-' prefix has been dropped from must repos. e.g. cgcs-root/stx/stx-integ is now just cgcs-root/stx/integ. What this meens is that a 'repo sync --force-sync' will delete cgcs-root/stx/stx-integ and create cgcs-root/stx/integ from scratch. It won't just move the repo to the new install path. Deleting the old path mean any work you may have saved in a side branch or in stash will be gone!
I strongly recommend you do one of two things.
1) Back up your work somewhere outside of the directory structure controlled by the repo tool before you 'repo sync ...'
2) Set up a new root directory and start fresh with 'repo init ...' and 'repo sync ...'
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Scott Little [scott.little@windriver.com] *Sent:* September 4, 2019 9:50 AM *To:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring
Reminder
Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Scott
On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow).
Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice.
I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates.
After everything has merged, you'll need to ...
1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch.
2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required.
Scott Little
On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/ <https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/>
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166 <https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166>
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
We have a green sanity. The freeze is now lifted. There is a spreadsheet [1] that maps the location of packages from old to new. Scott [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw... On 2019-09-06 9:38 a.m., Scott Little wrote:
The docker image build was also successful.
Scott
On 2019-09-06 12:19 a.m., Little, Scott wrote:
We have a successful ISO build on CENGN. I will be launching a second build to test docker image creation.
I still recommend we stay frozen for one more day while we await a sanity result. You can however start looking at the new code structure.
A warning however. The paths to our most active repos has changed. The 'stx-' prefix has been dropped from must repos. e.g. cgcs-root/stx/stx-integ is now just cgcs-root/stx/integ. What this meens is that a 'repo sync --force-sync' will delete cgcs-root/stx/stx-integ and create cgcs-root/stx/integ from scratch. It won't just move the repo to the new install path. Deleting the old path mean any work you may have saved in a side branch or in stash will be gone!
I strongly recommend you do one of two things.
1) Back up your work somewhere outside of the directory structure controlled by the repo tool before you 'repo sync ...'
2) Set up a new root directory and start fresh with 'repo init ...' and 'repo sync ...'
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Scott Little [scott.little@windriver.com] *Sent:* September 4, 2019 9:50 AM *To:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring
Reminder
Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Scott
On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow).
Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice.
I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates.
After everything has merged, you'll need to ...
1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch.
2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required.
Scott Little
On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/ <https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/>
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166 <https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166>
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
Al is fixing up some missing .gitreviews on the new repos. We should be able to get reviews passed zuul shortly. Thanks Al. Scott On 2019-09-09 9:53 a.m., Scott Little wrote:
We have a green sanity.
The freeze is now lifted.
There is a spreadsheet [1] that maps the location of packages from old to new.
Scott
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
On 2019-09-06 9:38 a.m., Scott Little wrote:
The docker image build was also successful.
Scott
On 2019-09-06 12:19 a.m., Little, Scott wrote:
We have a successful ISO build on CENGN. I will be launching a second build to test docker image creation.
I still recommend we stay frozen for one more day while we await a sanity result. You can however start looking at the new code structure.
A warning however. The paths to our most active repos has changed. The 'stx-' prefix has been dropped from must repos. e.g. cgcs-root/stx/stx-integ is now just cgcs-root/stx/integ. What this meens is that a 'repo sync --force-sync' will delete cgcs-root/stx/stx-integ and create cgcs-root/stx/integ from scratch. It won't just move the repo to the new install path. Deleting the old path mean any work you may have saved in a side branch or in stash will be gone!
I strongly recommend you do one of two things.
1) Back up your work somewhere outside of the directory structure controlled by the repo tool before you 'repo sync ...'
2) Set up a new root directory and start fresh with 'repo init ...' and 'repo sync ...'
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Scott Little [scott.little@windriver.com] *Sent:* September 4, 2019 9:50 AM *To:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Important] repo restructuring
Reminder
Please treat the code base as frozen. No gerrit reviews, other than the restructuring reviews I'll be publishing today, should be receiving a WF+1 until further notice.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Scott
On 2019-09-03 2:33 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
Pending a final green sanity result, the tentative restructure day will be Sept 4 (tomorrow).
Please freeze ALL code submissions, starting at 1 pm UTC on Sept 4, until further notice.
I'll be running a repo split tool. It will generate more than a dozen code reviews that will ALL have to be merged before we can unfreeze the code for general updates.
After everything has merged, you'll need to ...
1) If you are working on code that has not been relocated (refer to spreadsheet [3]) then 'repo sync --force-sync' be sufficient. Before doing that, be sure to save your work as a commit on a private working branch.
2) If your working on code that has been relocated, Then your best bet is to start with a fresh 'repo init' into a new working directory. Use 'git format-patch' or 'diff' to capture your work, and apply the patch at the new location. Some surgery to path names may be required.
Scott Little
On 2019-08-30 4:09 p.m., Scott Little wrote:
The layered build feature is getting ready for its initial required changes [1] [2].
The first phase is a restructuring of the StarlingX git repos to enable layered builds in the next phase. In light of new package additions in the last few weeks, there has been a few modifications and additions to the spreadsheet [3] documenting all the intended moves. Edits are in blue text. The intent is that all package relocations will be history preserving.
We plan to implement the git restructuring on the week of September 3-6.
My initial ask of the StarlingX community is that we *temporarily freeze the addition of any new packages* while we make a final test run. This means that any updates that touch a centos_pkgs_dir file should not receive a WF+1 until the relocation is complete. After the relocation, you may need to re-issue your code review.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Scott Little
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/ <https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672288/>
[2] https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166 <https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2006166>
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
On 09/09/2019 15:53, Scott Little wrote:
We have a green sanity.
The freeze is now lifted.
There is a spreadsheet [1] that maps the location of packages from old to new.
Scott
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
The spread sheet is showing as an empty one. Lines 2 till 253 are hidden and the sheet is in read only for external user. Could you please help us to see where packages have been moved. I need it to re-enable build on OBS. Thanks. -- Dominig ar Foll Senior Software Architect Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Sorry, I left an active filter on column N. Fixed now. Scott On 2019-09-11 12:41 p.m., Dominig ar Foll (Intel Open Source) wrote:
On 09/09/2019 15:53, Scott Little wrote:
We have a green sanity.
The freeze is now lifted.
There is a spreadsheet [1] that maps the location of packages from old to new.
Scott
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
The spread sheet is showing as an empty one. Lines 2 till 253 are hidden and the sheet is in read only for external user.
Could you please help us to see where packages have been moved. I need it to re-enable build on OBS.
Thanks.
Hello, I have noticed when updating the _service fiile on the OBS that at least a new location is incorrect. Having only read write, I cannot do the correction. - Line 16 stx-config puppet-modules-wrs/puppet-nfv puppet-nfv stx-puppet monitor-armada-app Dominig On 13/09/2019 15:48, Scott Little wrote:
Sorry, I left an active filter on column N. Fixed now.
Scott
On 2019-09-11 12:41 p.m., Dominig ar Foll (Intel Open Source) wrote:
On 09/09/2019 15:53, Scott Little wrote:
We have a green sanity.
The freeze is now lifted.
There is a spreadsheet [1] that maps the location of packages from old to new.
Scott
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zURL1UlDST8lnvw3dMlNWN6pkLX6EVF6TDBw...
The spread sheet is showing as an empty one. Lines 2 till 253 are hidden and the sheet is in read only for external user.
Could you please help us to see where packages have been moved. I need it to re-enable build on OBS.
Thanks.
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
-- Dominig ar Foll Senior Software Architect Intel Open Source Technology Centre
participants (10)
-
Dean Troyer
-
Dominig ar Foll (Intel Open Source)
-
Jones, Bruce E
-
Little, Scott
-
Miller, Frank
-
Penney, Don
-
Rowsell, Brent
-
Saul Wold
-
Scott Little
-
Wensley, Barton