Alec,
We have had this conversation with David and Ray a number of
times in other areas.
We definitely prefer the architecture specifier is included in
all areas where there needs to be a distinction.
The correct descriptor for ARM64 is actually “aarch64”, and I
believe it is “x86_64” for x86 as described below.
Again, as we have pointed out in other instances (and more need
to be cleaned up over time), it is not acceptable to have x86_64 to be the
default assumption and omitted, for x86. I do not have an opinion on the append
front v append back, but what is important, as we clean these up is that we do
_not_ end up with the following:
opnfv/functest:release-5.0.0 (this is considered x86_64, normal, regular,
standard, while…)
opnfv/functest:aarch64-release-5.0.0, denotes this as special, different,
subordinate, other (pick your favorite descriptor of 2nd class citizen).
We strongly insist that we begin to use x86_64 and aarch64 architecture
descriptors everywhere where this is missing and where it shall be needed. And
we realize this may need to happen over a couple of releases but it is
important, for obvious equity reasons.
With Kind regards,
Bob
Robert (Bob) Monkman
Networking Software Strategy & Ecosystem Programs
ARM
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, Ca 95134
M: +1.510.676.5490
Skype: robert.monkman
From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Alec Hothan
(ahothan)
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 3:26 PM
To: Alexandru Avadanii <alexandru.avada...@enea.com>;
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] urgent euphrates git tags vote needed
Thanks for bringing up the multi-arch support and yes if we decide to go the
route of adding the arch in the tag there is no problem doing so - although
there does not seem to be any standard on where to place that string, I’ve seen
tags with the arch at the front (e.g. opnfv/functest:x86_64-release-5.0.0),
some at the back (opnfv/functest:release-5.0.0-x86_64).
I also see that in some cases a complete different arch specific docker org is
created, for example the arm32v7 organization has only containers built for
arm32v7:
https://hub.docker.com/u/arm32v7/
Same for arm64v8:
https://hub.docker.com/u/arm64v8/
If we follow that route, we’d have a new docker org for arm e.g.
opnfv-arm64v8/functest:release-5.0.0, reserving opnfv/functest:release-5.0.0
for x86 (for backward compatibility sake).
But that is a different discussion which we may need to decide on by MS11.
I don’t know if the container tag syntax for multi-arch is set in stone for
Euphrates (copy Mark/David).
Thanks
Alec
From: Alexandru Avadanii
<alexandru.avada...@enea.com<mailto:alexandru.avada...@enea.com>>
Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 1:07 PM
To: "Alec Hothan (ahothan)" <ahot...@cisco.com<mailto:ahot...@cisco.com>>,
"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>"
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] urgent euphrates git tags vote needed
+1 for the tag prefix.
How about adding the architecture to that prefix?
e.g. opnfv/functest:x86_64-release-5.0.0
From:
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Alec Hothan
(ahothan)
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 11:01 PM
To: Jose Lausuch;
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] urgent euphrates git tags vote needed
Jose,
I am fine with using the “release-” prefix instead. Any prefix can work. If we
want something shorter: rel-5.0.0. We can leave that decision to David.
Note that what you call “none release” can actually be as important for project
owners than those with the prefix ;-)
Looking at the bigger picture, the official releases are just a culmination of
a flurry of non-release images in the CI/CD day to day work and chances are
that some of those non-prefixed releases will end up being used by other
projects than OPNFV releases.
Thanks for all that have voted so far!
Alec
From: Jose Lausuch <jalaus...@suse.com<mailto:jalaus...@suse.com>>
Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 12:17 PM
To: "Alec Hothan (ahothan)" <ahot...@cisco.com<mailto:ahot...@cisco.com>>,
"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>"
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Cc: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmor...@att.com<mailto:acmor...@att.com>>,
Raymond Paik <rp...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:rp...@linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] urgent euphrates git tags vote needed
+1
What about using tag "release-x.y.z" instead of "opnfv-x.y.z" since the name
“opnfv” is already included in the image name? e.g. opnfv/functest:release-5.0.0
This way we differentiate between an official OPNFV release artifact from a
none released.
- Jose -
On 27 Sep 2017, at 20:00, Raymond Paik
<rp...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:rp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
All,
Please let Alec know if you have any other questions/feedback on the proposal.
The plan is to have a quick vote on the TSC call next week (October 3rd).
Thanks,
Ray
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:38 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
<acmor...@att.com<mailto:acmor...@att.com>> wrote:
+1 and thanks for the proposal, Alex!
Al
From:
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>]
On Behalf Of Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 4:44 AM
To: Alec Hothan (ahothan);
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] urgent euphrates git tags vote needed
+1 – per what Alec mentioned below, the new tagging scheme is only a small
change incremental change from the earlier plans, but offers a lot of
flexibility moving forward.
Frank
From: Alec Hothan (ahothan)
Sent: Montag, 25. September 2017 21:34
To:
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Cc: David McBride
<dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>>; Fatih
Degirmenci
<fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com<mailto:fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com>>; Frank
Brockners (fbrockne) <fbroc...@cisco.com<mailto:fbroc...@cisco.com>>; Tallgren,
Tapio (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
<tapio.tallg...@nokia.com<mailto:tapio.tallg...@nokia.com>>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] urgent euphrates git tags vote needed
I would like to get a quick vote from any person that works directly or
indirectly with code in OPNFV
Please reply with -1, 0 +1
For using prefixed git tags for the Euphrates release: “opnfv-5.0.0”
This is a slight change to the plan on record (which was to use “5.0.0”). This
does NOT impact euphrates deliverables for participating OPNFV projects (git
tags on stable/euphrates are applied by releng).
The only externally visible effect is the naming of container tags for
Euphrates official images in DockerHub will be named accordingly (e.g.
“opnfv/functest:opnfv-5.0.0”).
Everything else remains the same.
If you’d like to know more, the rationale is described here:
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/releng/OPNFV+projects+and+OPNFV+release+versioning<https://url10.mailanyone.net/v1/?m=1dxIWZ-0001lR-44&i=57e1b682&c=ctiaIuwOIzw1UK1w-TORMjIsBTt8Xj_35pTD34cLBOnBwRvLtDG-pl1qrxZlmRQtZWujTAbkl_FfrNoQsakacUMRcUcjWib584JczR8elpqX1jlZSjfDK7KS3-zPiNIH5-KNbwvBUKVehjGFFMyjJGnXy4PLDpSGU1LqCaJeO0tuOpvp0xlws6DK3U1niforYXvMMsnioGAAyNdpIl9AMaZLHHFkTYbLww31iptsI1qvv310kT5IT7dQ_jKzZegPJJt9oZ0TBrVIKu-XFnGYzKt00A-zsEzeJ3bkuUye9KgPUa2AhsbXYdql0AdRxczwkFZ1z4R2ADa6zJfhTjFjkV2pN24hvekYpEGHFmwoGIvJYcHGhSXq0Uv12Q3ssM-iXVhQXs4Qeu-axFawUZOPLt31DnA15mJztoDjsMGLaBtAMvSXeT9WVsaoQmhYVfdC82zOAX46jphYNaU4upVvF6aifs5hOhYBfAeBxYla3B7yTdFTPMg5I2PcYn0Rnlpq7Ul3VV3IMV82kzzu-S0CvUR_mNiDcAz7B0jzWelFA9R68B7yOW1l5w1JhdOeEWRn>
(thanks for Fatih, David, Frank, Tapio for reviewing)
In a nutshell, this adjustment is needed to prepare the path for proper
continuous delivery support by projects.
Any clarification/questions/discussion can be done over email or at the TSC or
release meetings tomorrow.
Thank You.
Alec
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss<https://url10.mailanyone.net/v1/?m=1dxIWZ-0001lR-44&i=57e1b682&c=R7OdfA2EBSsHm9SbY5hc-C8dwnEGOjt4nYA7ElDBgySKbftyGpe67Qschd51hzh6wZV76DCP5doA5A6PWVDEBrjhlk7yh0lBUHOPVpqs0f77Fq7bh1TCcqQaYonL7JNqw0ENh9I5iGxdcflcJ4Aq02dUHnOgcUBEPGcPnS_QNLaD-ofYOse-Wz2Z2A9nOZxCbVhtsr4FM_E-_2GQk64YitKPueIRdqkzS5KrBx2vsg7vIYESRDUrgYJ02cD79_3S5JsturUpqApRIE_2ARqvuw>
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any
medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
