config/openshift/installer: reinstate baremetal-installer image

[stbenjam]

This was removed in #4720.

This reinstates the baremetal-installer image for use with baremetal IPI
platforms, now that the image is fixed by openshift/installer#2206.

[stbenjam]

/assign @abhinavdahiya @wking

[stbenjam]

I also added this to the 4.2 yaml. I thought it was automatically synced, but that file hasn't been updated in some time.

[wking]

Do we need an exception grant for the 4.2 touch? And what about the 4.3 YAML (I'm not clear on how those are managed).

[stbenjam]

Do we need an exception grant for the 4.2 touch? And what about the 4.3 YAML (I'm not clear on how those are managed).

Who can help me understand what needs to be done? Yesterday when you looked, there was no CI images for 4.2, I imagine it has to be in the 4.2 file for that to happen, right?

[abhinavdahiya]

Do we need an exception grant for the 4.2 touch? And what about the 4.3 YAML (I'm not clear on how those are managed).

Who can help me understand what needs to be done? Yesterday when you looked, there was no CI images for 4.2, I imagine it has to be in the 4.2 file for that to happen, right?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1USkRjWPVxsRZNLG5BRJnm5Q1LSk-NtBgrxl2spFRRU8/edit#heading=h.k92ssruwn70d

from my reading of the doc, I think we should probably only update master.

[stbenjam]

Do we need an exception grant for the 4.2 touch? And what about the 4.3 YAML (I'm not clear on how those are managed).

Who can help me understand what needs to be done? Yesterday when you looked, there was no CI images for 4.2, I imagine it has to be in the 4.2 file for that to happen, right?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1USkRjWPVxsRZNLG5BRJnm5Q1LSk-NtBgrxl2spFRRU8/edit#heading=h.k92ssruwn70d

from my reading of the doc, I think we should probably only update master.

Ok I updated this to only edit master, but I did see the doc you linked and it mentions branches, there's no branches here.

In this case, the versioned YAML is in the master branch concurrently with the other releases. Can we find out for sure?

I don't see any indication in the history of the 4.2 files that's automated in any way: https://github.com/openshift/release/commits/master/ci-operator/config/openshift/installer/openshift-installer-release-4.2.yaml

[stbenjam]

Also: do I have to do something to ensure the origin-baremetal-installer repo gets created on Quay?

[wking]

Doc says:

Do I need to make sure branched CI Operator configs are up to date for release branches?

No. When the branch is cut and goes live, the current CI Operator configuration for the development branch is used to seed the configuration for the release branch. These are not DRY intentionally to allow for drift between CI for branches.

So I think we do need to manually propagate any changes to those per-release YAML configs that we want to see in that release. They're getting frozen out on branch creation with the expectation that what was working for them in master at branching-time will continue to work for them through the rest of their z stream lifecycle. If we want to get the baremetal image into 4.2 and 4.3 post-branch-creation, we'll need to manually update the per-release configs. Although it's not clear to me why config-syncing doesn't continue until we stop fast-forwarding the branches to track master (currently both 4.2 and 4.3 are fast-forwarding to track master).

[smarterclayton]

/lgtm

After this merges and you get one successful build, you'd add the mirror config to 4.2. Once that's added and mirrored, I make the mirrored repo public on quay.

You should only update master for now.

Are you correctly set up in OSBS?

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: smarterclayton, stbenjam

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• ci-operator/config/openshift/installer/OWNERS [smarterclayton]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[wking]

Are you correctly set up in OSBS?

How do we measure this? Is there somewhere we can check for successfully-built ART baremetal images?

[openshift-ci-robot]

@stbenjam: Updated the following 2 configmaps:

• ci-operator-master-configs configmap in namespace ci using the following files:
  • key openshift-installer-master.yaml using file ci-operator/config/openshift/installer/openshift-installer-master.yaml
• ci-operator-master-configs configmap in namespace ci-stg using the following files:
  • key openshift-installer-master.yaml using file ci-operator/config/openshift/installer/openshift-installer-master.yaml

Details

In response to this:

This was removed in #4720.

This reinstates the baremetal-installer image for use with baremetal IPI
platforms, now that the image is fixed by openshift/installer#2206.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[stbenjam]

@smarterclayton

/lgtm

After this merges and you get one successful build, you'd add the mirror config to 4.2. Once that's added and mirrored, I make the mirrored repo public on quay.

How do I see if there's been a successful build?

You should only update master for now.

Are you correctly set up in OSBS?

What do I need to do to get setup in OSBS?

[eparis]

"OSBS" means the ART process I linked you.

[stbenjam]

"OSBS" means the ART process I linked you.

Ok, I didn't know if OSBS is different than the internal things, i.e. an upstream instance of Koji that we needed configured as well. I've got the ART process started.

Is there anything else I need to do here? The upstream process is missing some docs, this is a bit of a spirit quest...