[Suggestion] Suggestions regarding dependencies in `stable-*` versions

[bugwz]

Regarding the issue of modifying the ansible-core version in historical stable-* versions within the community, I have the following suggestions:

• Try not to modify the ansible-core version and other dependent component versions in historical stable-* versions unless there are any bugs that prevent normal use. Modifications can lead to many chain reactions, such as:
  • Previously, everything worked fine, but after pulling the latest version of the code, local execution issues were discovered, ultimately traced back to community modifications of ansible-core, python, and other dependencies.
  • This can cause many discrepancies between ceph-ansible documentation and the actual code. For example, in #7492, the ansible-core version in stable-7.0 was modified to be greater than 2.15, and the python dependency was upgraded to 3.10. However, the documentation at https://docs.ceph.com/projects/ceph-ansible/en/stable-7.0/ still indicates that the ansible-core dependency is 2.12.
• Since ceph-ansible will not receive significant support in the future, the primary focus should be on maintaining the stability of the existing versions rather than introducing new versions arbitrarily.

I still recommend reverting the version dependency of stable-7.0 back to 2.12 unless the previous commit fixed a major issue.

---

针对于社区对历史 stable-* 版本修改 ansible-core 版本的问题，我有如下建议：

• 尽量不要修改历史 stable-* 版本中的 ansible-core 版本及其他依赖的组件版本，除非有任何无法正常使用的 bug 。因为修改后会导致很多连锁反应，比如：
  • 之前正常使用的没有问题，但是拉取最新版本代码后，发现本地执行异常，最终发现是因为社区修改了 ansible-core ，python 等的相关依赖；
  • 这会导致 ceph-ansible 的很多文档记录与实际的代码严重不符合。比如 #7492 中修改了 stable-7.0 中的 ansible-core 版本需要大于 2.15 ，python 依赖需要升级为 3.10 ，但是 https://docs.ceph.com/projects/ceph-ansible/en/stable-7.0/ 中的文档中标明的 ansible-core 依赖还是 2.12 ；
• 既然 ceph-ansible 后续不会投入大量的精力支撑，那么首先要保证的是存量的稳定，而不是为了随便引入新版本。

我依旧建议将 stable-7.0 的版本依赖回退到 2.12 ，除非之前的 commit 修复了很重大的问题

@guits

[guits]

@bugwz let's just update the documentation in that case

[bugwz]

Thank you for your response. Modifying the document to maintain consistency is also a good approach.

@guits

[bugwz]

@guits #7599 Please review the code. : )