[openstack-dev] [openstack-announce] End of life for managed stable/icehouse branches
ihrachys at redhat.com
Wed Jul 15 10:37:59 UTC 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 07/14/2015 09:14 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 10:29 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>> On 07/14/2015 12:33 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> I missed this announce...
>>> On 07/02/2015 05:32 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>>> Per the Icehouse EOL discussion last month, now that the
>>>> final 2014.1.5 release is behind us I have followed our
>>>> usual end of life steps for stable/icehouse branches on repos
>>>> under the control of the OpenStack Release Cycle Management
>>>> project-team. Specifically, for any repos with the
>>>> release:managed tag, icehouse-specific test jobs were
>>>> removed from our CI system and all open change reviews were
>>>> abandoned for stable/icehouse. Then the final states of the
>>>> branches were tagged as "icehouse-eol" and the branches
>>>> subsequently deleted.
>>> I believe I asked you about 10 times to keep these branches
>>> alive, so that distributions could work together on a longer
>>> support, even without a CI behind it.
>>> I have also asked for a private gerrit for maintaining the
>>> Icehouse patches after EOL.
>>> While I understand the later means some significant work, I
>>> don't understand why you have deleted the Icehouse branches.
>>> Effectively, under these conditions, I am giving up doing any
>>> kind of coordination between distros for security patches of
>>> Icehouse. :(
>> As far as I know, there was no real coordination on those
>> patches before, neither I saw any real steps from any side to get
>> it up.
> Well... as far as I know, you were not there during the
> conversations we had at the summits about this. Neither you are on
> my list of Icehouse security persons. So I fail to see how you
> could be in the loop for this indeed.
Indeed, in Openstack, people work in public, and publish details about
their (private?) talks on summits on the mailing list. This is the
place where decisions are made, not summits, and it's a pity that some
people see chats on summits as something defining the future.
If you don't think I (a member of stable-maint-core) should have been
in the loop, fine for me. Just don't complain when branches are
dropped. Note: infra got explicit approval from the team to drop those
branches. It could be avoided if 1) you were participating in stable
effort; 2) there were public discussion on the mailing list and
resolution that we want to extend branch life after end-of-CI.
>> That said, anyone can come up with an initiative to maintain
>> those branches under some 3party roof (just push -eol tag into
>> github and advertise), and if there is real (and not just
>> anticipated) collaboration going on around it, then the project
>> may reconsider getting it back in the big stadium.
> I have a list of contacts for each and every downstream
Whom have you contacted on RDO side? Just curious.
> All of them agreed to work under this coordinated Git repo, so that
> we share the same patch. The only issue is that during embargo
> period, we can't discuss this type of patches in public. Which is
> why a private gerrit was the way to go. Though for not-embargoed
> stuff, we could well have used the already existing Gerrit
> infrastructure, without a CI (as all distro are running their own
> tests anyway).
I am not sure RDO would be interested in consuming pieces of unclear
quality (no CI) thru rebase only to realize that half of those are not
valid. I would not dare to lower quality of 'after-eol' releases of
RDO by rebasing on top of unvalidated patches.
>> I am tired to say that again and again, but there should be some
>> resource investment from interested parties, upfront, before
>> infra takes part of the burden on their shoulders. Asking won't
> How do you expect to see anything happening before Icehouse
> effectively gets EOL? By the way, I haven't asked anything but
> *not* doing something. I don't see how much "burden" I'm putting on
> infra here.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the OpenStack-dev