Update Windows installation jobgroup

[pablo-herranz]

The jobgroup for installing Windows is obsolete since some years ago. This changes are for syncing the jobgroup to the OSD status

[Vogtinator]

Is this actually used/useful?

[pablo-herranz]

Is this actually used/useful?

Currently, whenever any change is done to the qcow2 images, there's need to clone them from OSD to O3, and though there's not a direct connection between the machines, I guess to run the installation in both test environments would be time-saving.

[Vogtinator]

Is this actually used/useful?

Currently, whenever any change is done to the qcow2 images, there's need to clone them from OSD to O3, and though there's not a direct connection between the machines, I guess to run the installation in both test environments would be time-saving.

Sounds like o3 should become the authoritative source for the installation jobs and images then?

[pablo-herranz]

Is this actually used/useful?

Currently, whenever any change is done to the qcow2 images, there's need to clone them from OSD to O3, and though there's not a direct connection between the machines, I guess to run the installation in both test environments would be time-saving.

Sounds like o3 should become the authoritative source for the installation jobs and images then?

Wouldn't it be necessary to copy the qcow images from O3 to OSD then later?

I also don't like to have duplicated jobs, but didn't find a better solution...

[Vogtinator]

Is this actually used/useful?

Currently, whenever any change is done to the qcow2 images, there's need to clone them from OSD to O3, and though there's not a direct connection between the machines, I guess to run the installation in both test environments would be time-saving.

Sounds like o3 should become the authoritative source for the installation jobs and images then?

Wouldn't it be necessary to copy the qcow images from O3 to OSD then later?

Yes, which shouldn't be an issue. Definitely easier than osd -> o3.

I also don't like to have duplicated jobs, but didn't find a better solution...

o3 is "upstream" so if possible it should be the development target.

[pablo-herranz]

Is this actually used/useful?

Currently, whenever any change is done to the qcow2 images, there's need to clone them from OSD to O3, and though there's not a direct connection between the machines, I guess to run the installation in both test environments would be time-saving.

Sounds like o3 should become the authoritative source for the installation jobs and images then?

Wouldn't it be necessary to copy the qcow images from O3 to OSD then later?

Yes, which shouldn't be an issue. Definitely easier than osd -> o3.

I also don't like to have duplicated jobs, but didn't find a better solution...

o3 is "upstream" so if possible it should be the development target.

Seems ok for me but I'd like to know @mloviska 's point-of-view

[grisu48]

o3 is "upstream" so if possible it should be the development target.

Seems ok for me but I'd like to know @mloviska 's point-of-view

This sounds like a good approach to me. We can re-use resources from O3, and if this makes our life easier, then let's go for it.

[mloviska]

Seems ok for me but I'd like to know @mloviska 's point-of-view

FTR, we have already jobs in o3 that are installing windows images. For win10 we also have dedicated regcodes for o3 and OSD. I do not mind sharing the images as long as there is no non-technical issue involved here.