Open Stack

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
wrote:

> Kolla operators and developers,
>
> The general consensus of the Core Reviewer team for Kolla is that we
> should embrace a liberal backport policy for the Liberty release.  An
> example of liberal -> We add a new server service to Ansible, we would
> backport the feature to liberty.  This is in breaking with the typical
> OpenStack backports policy.  It also creates a whole bunch more work and
> has potential to introduce regressions in the Liberty release.
>
> Given these realities I want to put on hold any liberal backporting until
> after Summit.  I will schedule a fishbowl session for a backport policy
> discussion where we will decide as a community what type of backport policy
> we want.  The delivery required before we introduce any liberal backporting
> policy then should be a description of that backport policy discussion at
> Summit distilled into a RST file in our git repository.
>
> If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please chime in on the
> thread.
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
I am in favor of a very liberal backport policy. We have the potential to
have very little code difference between N, N-1, and N-2 releases while
still deploying the different versions of OpenStack. However, I recognize
is a big undertaking to backport all things, not to mention the testing
involved.

I would like to see two things before we truly embrace a liberal policy.
The first is better testing. A true gate that does upgrades and potentially
multinode (at least from a network perspective). The second thing is a bot
or automation of some kind to automatically propose non-conflicting patches
to the stable branches if they include the 'backport: xyz' tag in the
commit message. Cores would still need to confirm these changes with the
normal review process and could easily abandon them, but that would remove
alot of overhead of performing the actual backport.

Since Kolla simply deploys OpenStack, it is alot closer to a client or a
library than it is to Nova or Neutron. And given its mission maybe it
should break from the "typical OpenStack backports policy" so we can give a
consistent deployment experience across all stable and supported version of
OpenStack at any given time.

Those are my thoughts on the matter at least. I look forward to some
conversations about this in Tokyo.

Sam Yaple
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151009/268ee24e/attachment.html>