Re: [PROPOSE] RM for 4.16

[Daan Hoogland]

good luck Nicolas,

Are you going to call a code freeze?

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 3:33 PM Nicolas Vazquez <
nicolas.vazq...@shapeblue.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I’d like to put myself forward as the release manager for 4.16.0.0 and my
> colleagues Suresh Anaparti and Rohit Yadav as the co-RMs.
>
> For 4.16.0.0 my colleague Suresh will assist me during the process for
> reviewing/testing/merging the PRs, others will be welcome to support as
> well.
>
> I propose we have a window of at least 8 weeks (2 months) to allow
> community and users to test and report issues and aim to cut RC1 in Q3 2021
> (September or onwards). I'll propose timeline and details by the end of
> July.
>
> I hope to have your support. Any thoughts, feedback, comments? Thanks.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nicolas Vazquez
>
>
>
>

-- 
Daan

Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack

[nux]

Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets 
"oiled" better.


What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL

Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any 
of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.




On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:

Nux,
Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other clone
as they should be binary compatible.

I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically RHEL
packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:


Just one example: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827



RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata 
pages)

gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm  <-- not broken
gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm  <-- not broken



CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm   2020-09-17 17:27  <-- not broken
gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm   2021-01-28 22:09  <-- not broken



CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):

gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm18-Sep-2020 00:27  <-- not broken
gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm02-Dec-2020 23:33  <-- breaking change
gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm21-Jan-2021 22:55  <-- broken still
gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm29-Jan-2021 05:09  <-- fixed (via a
reverted change)


   Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where CentOS
8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
skipped the broken versions entirely.


   The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
reverted commits like the one above.


Thanks,
-Nathan McGarvey


On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, n...@li.nux.ro wrote:

Nathan,

So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times, just
like old CentOS did.

However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you 
should

be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
Stream, since they should be binary compatible.



On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
   CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to tell: 
"a
rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat 
CTO
said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due 
to
the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't 
think
it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported. 
(E.g.
what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under 
you
pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian 
have

point releases.

Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack

[Sven Vogel]

@nux

„Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.“

Agree

__

Sven Vogel
Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure

EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
P +49 341 42649 - 99
F +49 341 42649 - 98
s.vo...@ewerk.com
www.ewerk.com

Geschäftsführer:
Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Tassilo Möschke
Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065

Support:
+49 341 42649 555

Zertifiziert nach:
ISO/IEC 27001:2013
DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
DIN ISO/IEC 2-1:2018

ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed

EWERK-Blog | 
LinkedIn | 
Xing | 
Twitter | 
Facebook


Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.

Disclaimer Privacy:
Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) ist 
vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht der 
bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung, 
Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte 
informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen Sie die 
E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem System. Vielen 
Dank.

The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and 
may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is 
strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and 
then delete it (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.


Von: n...@li.nux.ro 
Gesendet: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:57:24 PM
An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack

Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
"oiled" better.

What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL

Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.



On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
> Nux,
> Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other clone
> as they should be binary compatible.
>
> I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically RHEL
> packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
> CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
> CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
> are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
>
>
> Just one example:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
>
>
> RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
> pages)
> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm  <-- not broken
> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm  <-- not broken
>
>
>
> CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27  <-- not broken
> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09  <-- not broken
>
>
>
> CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
> previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
>
> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm  18-Sep-2020 00:27  <-- not broken
> gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm  02-Dec-2020 23:33  <-- breaking change
> gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm  21-Jan-2021 22:55  <-- broken still
> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm  29-Jan-2021 05:09  <-- fixed (via a
> reverted change)
>
>
>Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where CentOS
> 8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
> skipped the broken versions entirely.
>
>
>The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
> good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
> literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
> reverted commits like the one above.
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Nathan McGarvey
>
>
> On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, n...@li.nux.ro wrote:
>> Nathan,
>>
>> So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
>> pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
>> In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
>> getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times, just
>> like old CentOS did.
>>
>> However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you
>> should
>> be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
>> Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>>CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to tell:
>>> "a
>>> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat
>>> CTO
>>> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due
>>> to
>>> the squishy nature 

Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack

[Nathan McGarvey]

Nux,
Also agree regarding EL8.

I wonder if it is possible to build on a RHEL "development" license
where builds and smoke tests and such can be done without licensing
cost.
(https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux,
https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions)

I'm not a lawyer and the terms seem murky as to how an Open-Source
project like CloudStack would interact with those terms, even in a
non-production sense. Do any other ASF projects use RHEL for build/test
servers or anything like that?


Thanks,
-Nathan McGarvey



On 6/24/21 8:17 AM, Sven Vogel wrote:
> @nux
> 
> „Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.“
> 
> Agree
> 
> __
> 
> Sven Vogel
> Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure
> 
> EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
> Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
> P +49 341 42649 - 99
> F +49 341 42649 - 98
> s.vo...@ewerk.com
> www.ewerk.com
> 
> Geschäftsführer:
> Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Tassilo Möschke
> Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065
> 
> Support:
> +49 341 42649 555
> 
> Zertifiziert nach:
> ISO/IEC 27001:2013
> DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
> DIN ISO/IEC 2-1:2018
> 
> ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed
> 
> EWERK-Blog | 
> LinkedIn | 
> Xing | 
> Twitter | 
> Facebook
> 
> 
> Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.
> 
> Disclaimer Privacy:
> Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) ist 
> vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht der 
> bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung, 
> Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte 
> informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen Sie die 
> E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem System. Vielen 
> Dank.
> 
> The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and 
> may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
> e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is 
> strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and 
> then delete it (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
> 
> 
> Von: n...@li.nux.ro 
> Gesendet: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:57:24 PM
> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
> 
> Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
> I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
> "oiled" better.
> 
> What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
> Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL
> 
> Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.
> 
> 
> 
> On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>> Nux,
>> Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other clone
>> as they should be binary compatible.
>>
>> I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically RHEL
>> packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
>> CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
>> CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
>> are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
>>
>>
>> Just one example:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
>>
>>
>> RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
>> pages)
>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm  <-- not broken
>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm  <-- not broken
>>
>>
>>
>> CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27  <-- not broken
>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09  <-- not broken
>>
>>
>>
>> CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
>> previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
>>
>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm  18-Sep-2020 00:27  <-- not broken
>> gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm  02-Dec-2020 23:33  <-- breaking change
>> gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm  21-Jan-2021 22:55  <-- broken still
>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm  29-Jan-2021 05:09  <-- fixed (via a
>> reverted change)
>>
>>
>>Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where CentOS
>> 8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
>> skipped the broken versions entirely.
>>
>>
>>The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
>> good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
>> literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
>> reverted commits like the one above.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Nathan McGarvey
>>
>>
>> On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, n...@li.nux.ro wrote:

Re: [PROPOSE] RM for 4.16

[Nicolas Vazquez]

Yes Daan, that would be included on the timeline

Regards,
Nicolas Vazquez


De: Daan Hoogland 
Enviado: jueves, 24 de junio de 2021 08:33
Para: dev
Cc: us...@cloudstack.apache.org
Asunto: Re: [PROPOSE] RM for 4.16

good luck Nicolas,

Are you going to call a code freeze?

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 3:33 PM Nicolas Vazquez <
nicolas.vazq...@shapeblue.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I’d like to put myself forward as the release manager for 4.16.0.0 and my
> colleagues Suresh Anaparti and Rohit Yadav as the co-RMs.
>
> For 4.16.0.0 my colleague Suresh will assist me during the process for
> reviewing/testing/merging the PRs, others will be welcome to support as
> well.
>
> I propose we have a window of at least 8 weeks (2 months) to allow
> community and users to test and report issues and aim to cut RC1 in Q3 2021
> (September or onwards). I'll propose timeline and details by the end of
> July.
>
> I hope to have your support. Any thoughts, feedback, comments? Thanks.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nicolas Vazquez
>
>
>
>

--
Daan


 

Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack

[nux]

That's a very good suggestion, I'm sure we can sort out something.

Regards,
Lucian

On 2021-06-24 14:40, Nathan McGarvey wrote:

Nux,
Also agree regarding EL8.

I wonder if it is possible to build on a RHEL "development" license
where builds and smoke tests and such can be done without licensing
cost.
(https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux,
https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions)

I'm not a lawyer and the terms seem murky as to how an Open-Source
project like CloudStack would interact with those terms, even in a
non-production sense. Do any other ASF projects use RHEL for build/test
servers or anything like that?


Thanks,
-Nathan McGarvey



On 6/24/21 8:17 AM, Sven Vogel wrote:

@nux

„Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include 
any

of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.“

Agree

__

Sven Vogel
Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure

EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
P +49 341 42649 - 99
F +49 341 42649 - 98
s.vo...@ewerk.com
www.ewerk.com

Geschäftsführer:
Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Tassilo Möschke
Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065

Support:
+49 341 42649 555

Zertifiziert nach:
ISO/IEC 27001:2013
DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
DIN ISO/IEC 2-1:2018

ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed

EWERK-Blog | 
LinkedIn | 
Xing | 
Twitter | 
Facebook



Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.

Disclaimer Privacy:
Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) 
ist vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht 
der bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung, 
Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte 
informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen 
Sie die E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem 
System. Vielen Dank.


The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are 
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you 
should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it 
(including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.



Von: n...@li.nux.ro 
Gesendet: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:57:24 PM
An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack

Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
"oiled" better.

What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL

Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.



On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:

Nux,
Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other 
clone

as they should be binary compatible.

I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically 
RHEL

packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:


Just one example:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827


RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
pages)
gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm  <-- not broken
gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm  <-- not broken



CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27  <-- not broken
gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09  <-- not broken



CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):

gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm  18-Sep-2020 00:27  <-- not broken
gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm  02-Dec-2020 23:33  <-- breaking change
gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm  21-Jan-2021 22:55  <-- broken still
gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm  29-Jan-2021 05:09  <-- fixed (via a
reverted change)


   Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where 
CentOS

8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
skipped the broken versions entirely.


   The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
reverted commits like the one above.


Thanks,
-Nathan McGarvey


On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, n...@li.nux.ro wrote:

Nathan,

So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
In fact, it's onl