Removing Barreleye, Firestone, Garrison

Removing Barreleye, Firestone, Garrison

[Joel Stanley]

Hello,

I am working on ensuring the boards that we build for are working with
the dev-4.13 kernel branch. Currently Barreleye, Firestone and
Garrison systems fail as there has not been a device tree forward
ported.

Is there an interest in maintaining these platforms?

If not, I will remove them from CI on Friday to unblock the kernel work.

This does not stop someone re-enabling them in the near future should
interest arise. However, I suggest we create a policy on removing
abandoned machines when there is no one actively maintaining them, and
we use this to delete machines once they reach the agreed criteria.

Cheers,

Joel

Re: Removing Barreleye, Firestone, Garrison

[Stewart Smith]

Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> writes:
> I am working on ensuring the boards that we build for are working with
> the dev-4.13 kernel branch. Currently Barreleye, Firestone and
> Garrison systems fail as there has not been a device tree forward
> ported.
>
> Is there an interest in maintaining these platforms?
>
> If not, I will remove them from CI on Friday to unblock the kernel work.
>
> This does not stop someone re-enabling them in the near future should
> interest arise. However, I suggest we create a policy on removing
> abandoned machines when there is no one actively maintaining them, and
> we use this to delete machines once they reach the agreed criteria.

From a primarily consumer of OpenBMC perspective, I think it's okay to
remove them. Booting the host on Firestone/Garrison with OpenBMC has
always been somewhat sketchy.

-- 
Stewart Smith
OPAL Architect, IBM.

Re: Removing Barreleye, Firestone, Garrison

[Joel Stanley]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Stewart Smith
<stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> writes:
>> I am working on ensuring the boards that we build for are working with
>> the dev-4.13 kernel branch. Currently Barreleye, Firestone and
>> Garrison systems fail as there has not been a device tree forward
>> ported.
>>
>> Is there an interest in maintaining these platforms?
>>
>> If not, I will remove them from CI on Friday to unblock the kernel work.
>>
>> This does not stop someone re-enabling them in the near future should
>> interest arise. However, I suggest we create a policy on removing
>> abandoned machines when there is no one actively maintaining them, and
>> we use this to delete machines once they reach the agreed criteria.
>
> From a primarily consumer of OpenBMC perspective, I think it's okay to
> remove them. Booting the host on Firestone/Garrison with OpenBMC has
> always been somewhat sketchy.

Thanks for the response Stewart.

I've removed these three machines from the CI.

Cheers,

Joel