Howdy, The spec to replace instack-virt-setup[1] got me thinking about the relationship between RDO and TripleO. Specifically, when thinking about where to store/create an undercloud.qcow2 image, and if this effort is worth duplicating.
Originally, I agreed with the comments on the spec wrt the fact that we do not want to rely on RDO artifacts for TripleO CI. However, we do exactly that already. Delorean packages are 100% a RDO artifact. So it seems a bit odd to say we do not want to rely on an image that is really just a bunch of those other artifacts, that we already rely on, rolled up into a qcow. On the other hand, it seems a bit odd that we rely on delorean packages at all. This creates a bit of a sticky situation for RDO. Take the case where RDO has identified all issues that need to be fixed to work with HEAD of master, but some patches have not merged yet. It should be ok for RDO to put a couple .patch files in the packaging, and be on our merry way until those are merged upstream and can be removed. However, if we did this today, it would break TripleO CI since TripleO CI would then pick up these patched RPMs from delorean. I am not sure what the best path to resolve this is. Ideally, the above need for .patch files is not there, but that is another topic. -trown [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/276810/2/specs/mitaka/tripleo-quickstart.rst __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
