[openstack-dev] [all] icehouse failure rates are somewhat catastrophic - who is actually maintaining it?

Michael Still mikal at stillhq.com
Thu Oct 2 00:49:18 UTC 2014


I agree with Sean here.

The original idea was that these stable branches would be maintained by the
distros, and that is clearly not happening if you look at the code review
latency there. We need to sort that out before we even consider supporting
a release for more than the one year we currently do.

Michael

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:

> On 10/01/2014 04:46 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> > On 10/1/14, 11:53 AM, "Morgan Fainberg" <morgan.fainberg at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> As stable branches got discussed recently, I'm kind of curious who is
> >> actually stepping up to make icehouse able to pass tests in any real
> >> way. Because right now I've been trying to fix devstack icehouse so that
> >> icehouse requirements can be unblocked (and to land code that will
> >> reduce grenade failures)
> >>
> >> I'm on retry #7 of modifying the tox.ini file in devstack.
> >>
> >> During the last summit people said they wanted to support icehouse for
> >> 15 months. Right now we're at 6 months and the tree is basically unable
> >> to merge code.
> >>
> >> So who is actually standing up to fix these things, or are we going to
> >> just leave it broken and shoot icehouse in the head early?
> >>
> >>        -Sean
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sean Dague
> >> http://dague.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We should stick with the longer support for Icehouse in my opinion. I'll
> >> happily volunteer time to help get it back into shape.
> >>
> >>
> >> The other question is will Juno *also* have extended stable support? Or
> >> is it more of an LTS style thing (I'm not a huge fan of the LTS model,
> >> but it is easier in some regards). If every release is getting extended
> >> support, we may need to look at our tool
> >> chains so we can better support the releases.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Morgan
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent via mobile
> >
> > Would ever release need to be LTS or would every other release (or every
> > 4th) release be LTS? We could consider a policy like Ubuntu’s (e.g.,
> 10.04
> > 12.04, 14.04 are all LTS and the next will be 16.04).
>
> Before thinking about LTS policy we should actually think about having a
> tree that you can land code in... because today, you can't with icehouse.
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125075/ is on recheck #7 - still failing.
>
> Note, this is *after* we turned off the 2 highest failing tests on
> icehouse as well to alleviate the issue.
>
>         -Sean
>
> --
> Sean Dague
> http://dague.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Rackspace Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141002/47e9dfe9/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list