Hi,
On 5/11/23 15:36, Seyram Komla Sapaty wrote:
So far, the selected users I've reached out to are maintainers who have their tools sorted in the "Needs Custom Image" column(excluding those needing multistack support)on the grid migration project board[0].
My understanding is that most of the tools in the "needs custom image" column need either multistack support or custom Apt packages installed in the image, neither of which are currently supported. So starting from that column seems like a very strange decision to me.
In this next phase, we are slowly expanding the selected users from the hundreds of tools that are still in the 'Backlog' column on the migration board, with emphasis on the ones maintaining Python tools.
Your previous message indicates that you were planning to send a large amount of invites next Monday (May 15th). What does "slowly" mean here?
I still believe that sending any non-small amount of invites should not happen at this stage. There is a large amount of known issues that make debugging very difficult[0], cause confusing and unexplainable failures[1] or completely break support for the most popular[2] runtime on Toolforge[3].
[0]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T336225 [1]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T336360 [2]: https://k8s-status.toolforge.org/images/ [3]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T335865
The only thing that's going to happen if we unnecessarily rush this release is that people are going to get a mental image where Kubernetes, our tooling around it and the Build Service are difficult to use and are full of bugs and annoying limitations, which is going to make it even harder and slower to get everyone to migrate off the Grid. We've made this mistake before and I would really like to avoid it this time.
Taavi