Bug 1367470

Summary:	[Docs][RFE][Director] Documentation for major upgrade mixed version support - OSP 10 undercloud, OSP 9 overcloud (or even OSP 8 overcloud? TBD)
Product:	Red Hat OpenStack	Reporter:	Marios Andreou <mandreou>
Component:	documentation	Assignee:	Dan Macpherson <dmacpher>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Don Domingo <ddomingo>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	10.0 (Newton)	CC:	apetrich, dbecker, lbopf, mburns, morazi, rhel-osp-director-maint, srevivo
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Documentation, FutureFeature
Target Release:	10.0 (Newton)
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-07-03 02:41:51 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:	1337798
Bug Blocks:

Description Marios Andreou 2016-08-16 13:28:50 UTC

Description of problem:
This is a bug for tracking the documentation for major upgrade mixed version support. That is, an upgraded undercloud, from OSP 9 to OSP 10, then being used to manage an OSP 9 overcloud. There may be specific caveats, issues, limitations or workarounds that need to be called out in the docs.

We have been using etherpad to track docs in the past, we might consider using a gerrit review (possibly red hat gerrit given the downstream nature of these docs). I will update this bug accordingly once we settle on a method.

Comment 1 Adriano Petrich 2016-09-09 13:53:43 UTC

So I have some questions about this:

First one is more conceptual: I see backwards compatibility is that the same as running mixed deployments ( like with an UC on OSP10 and the OC in OSP9 for instance) ?

Second I'm unsure on what are the actions that I could take on this bug. I've done mixed deployments before and we used to have a kilo directory inside the new osp tht package. Right now we don't and what we do in CI is that we copy the tht folder before upgrading. I can test to see if the older tht versions work in a mixed deployment situation but I'm unsure of where to go from there.

Comment 2 Lucy Bopf 2016-09-16 06:09:11 UTC

Moving back to the default assignee to be triaged when the information required becomes available.

Comment 3 Lucy Bopf 2016-10-19 23:13:11 UTC

The engineering bug for this feature is now ON_QA.

Assigning to Dan for review. Dan, can you please add an initial time estimate to this bug?

Comment 5 Dan Macpherson 2017-07-03 02:41:51 UTC

This has been implemented and reviewed during the OSP10 docs cycle. Closing this BZ.