[openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Change to kolla's release model to gain access to release's website marketing

Steven Dake (stdake) stdake at cisco.com
Sat Apr 2 20:53:18 UTC 2016



On 4/2/16, 1:08 PM, "Doug Hellmann" <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:

>
>> On Apr 2, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
>>wrote:
>> 
>> A big correction to this thread below.
>> 
>> On 4/2/16, 10:05 AM, "Steven Dake (stdake)" <stdake at cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/2/16, 10:01 AM, "Jeremy Stanley" <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2016-04-02 16:13:28 +0000 (+0000), Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> I feel as though we are not permitted to participate in the
>>>>> marketing that takes place on the releases website
>>>> [...]
>>>> 
>>>> I'll refrain from commenting on the rest since I'm not a member of
>>>> the release team, but I *seriously* hope we've not created a
>>>> "marketing" portal simply by way of tracking version numbers,
>>>> changelogs and release schedules. I have a feeling few (if any) of
>>>> the release team wants to get into the marketing business and I'm
>>>> happy to help do whatever is in my power to neuter the "marketing
>>>> potential" for releases.openstack.org so it can be viewed simply as
>>>> a source of _objective_ technical data.
>>>> --
>>> 
>>> It is objective technical data, but atm we are excluded, and people
>>>look
>>> at that objective technical data (like marketing and sales folks) to
>>>make
>>> decisions, so it is by its very nature a marketing resource as well.
>>>If
>>> we are excluded, sales and marketing folks that make decisions about
>>> OpenStack deployments may come along and say "not on the website, not
>>> legitimate".
>> 
>> release:independent projects are rendered on this website [1], and ttx's
>> review comment was more to put kolla in releases:independent of the
>> releases repo rather then the mitaka location [1].  I misunderstood
>>ttx's
>> comments to mean we were completely excluded which is not the case.
>
>Right, we just need it filed under the right directory.

Note I submitted a change [1] to clarify this - since it wasn't
documented.  But I'm glad dims was able to reach out to me on irc to
clarify the situation.  Thanks dims!

>
>> 
>> That said, release:cycle-with-milestones is still what we want :)
>
>The model change can be approved and applied to Newton. During Newton
>we¹ll figure out how to communicate about projects that have changed
>their tags ‹ we don¹t want to rewrite history for old releases but we
>don¹t want it to be hard for users to find full project history. I have
>some ideas to handle it but I¹m waiting until after the summit to
>implement them.

Sounds good.  I understand now is not the optimal time to request such
changes to how the releases repository works.  I hope the outcome is that
projects that were really following release:cycle-with* have an
opportunity to be marked in the appropriate place even if it does mean
rewriting history, since our intent with our big tent application wasn't
for our projects to be marked as "independent" on the releases website.  I
believe the intent of the project is what matters most and we clearly
followed the release cycle pretty closely in Liberty and Mitaka (with the
exception of a dental medical emergency which almost killed me :(which
made our tagging late for one milestone).

At the time of our big tent application there was no releases website, or
we would have definitely chosen release-with-intermeditary.  Unfortunately
that warning wasn¹t there at the time and we can't fix the past, so Newton
it is :)

You can see from my PTL candidacy for Mitaka [2] that I was keen to have
the release:managed tag back then, and that applies even more so now.

Regards,
-steve

[1] https://review.openstack.org/300823
[2] 
https://github.com/openstack/election/blob/master/candidates/mitaka/Kolla/S
teven_Dake.txt#L35
Regards
-steve

>
>Doug
>
>> 
>> I'd ask people cut me a little slack on this, I am new to the
>> openstack/releases repository ;)
>> 
>> [1] http://releases.openstack.org/independent.html
>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/297976/
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> -steve
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Jeremy Stanley
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>>>__
>>>> _
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>________________________________________________________________________
>>>__
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>_________________________________________________________________________
>>_
>> 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
>
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>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




More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list