[openstack-dev] [tc] naming N and O releases nowish

Barrett, Carol L carol.l.barrett at intel.com
Thu Oct 8 13:59:23 UTC 2015

Monty - Thanks for the background, it brings a viewpoint I hadn't considered.

>From a roadmap point of view, as we're working toward communicating the direction for OpenStack project development across 3 releases (Liberty, Mitake, N-Release), I think it would better to have a name for N, rather than using N-Release.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Monty Taylor [mailto:mordred at inaugust.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 3:22 PM
To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] naming N and O releases nowish

On 10/07/2015 09:24 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 10/07/2015 08:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Sean Dague wrote:
>>> We're starting to make plans for the next cycle. Long term plans are 
>>> getting made for details that would happen in one or two cycles.
>>> As we already have the locations for the N and O summits I think we 
>>> should do the naming polls now and have names we can use for this 
>>> planning instead of letters. It's pretty minor but it doesn't seem 
>>> like there is any real reason to wait and have everyone come up with 
>>> working names that turn out to be confusing later.
>> That sounds fair. However the release naming process currently states[1]:
>> """
>> The process to chose the name for a release begins once the location 
>> of the design summit of the release to be named is announced and no 
>> sooner than the opening of development of the previous release.
>> """
>> ...which if I read it correctly means we could pick N now, but not O. 
>> We might want to change that (again) first.
>> [1] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/release-naming.html
> Right, it seems like we should change it so that we can do naming as 
> soon as the location is announced.
> For projects like Nova that are trying to plan things more than one 
> cycle out, having those names to hang those features on is massively 
> useful (as danpb also stated). Delaying for bureaucratic reasons just 
> seems silly. :)

So, for what it's worth, I remember discussing this when we discussed the current process, and the change you are proposing was one of the options put forward when we talked about it.

The reason for not doing all of them as soon as we know them was to keep a sense of ownership by the people who are actually working on the thing. Barcelona is a long way away and we'll all likely have rage quit by then, leaving the electorate for the name largely disjoint from the people working on the release.

Now, I hear you - and I'm not arguing that position. (In fact, I believe my original thought was in line with what you said here) BUT - I mostly want to point out that we have had this discussion, the discussion was not too long ago, it covered this point, and I sort of feel like if we have another discussion on naming process people might kill us with pitchforks.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list