Open Stack

Graham Hayes wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, at 09:50, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> [...]
>> In particular, we created two paths in the graph:
>> * upgrade < accessible-upgrade
>> * upgrade < rolling-upgrade < zero-downtime < zero-impact
>>
>> I personally would get rid of zero-impact (not sure there is that much
>> additional information it conveys beyond zero-downtime).
>>
>> If we could make the requirements of accessible-upgrade a part of
>> rolling-upgrade, that would also help (single path in the graph, only 3
>> "levels"). Is there any of the current rolling-upgrade things (cinder,
>> neutron, nova, swift) that would not qualify for accessible-upgrade as
>> well ?
> 
> Well, there is projects (like designate) that qualify for accessible
> upgrade, but not rolling upgrade.

Sure, but is there real user value in communicating that capability
separately from the rolling-upgrade ability ? And if there is value, is
it enough to justify creating a harder-to-decipher upgrade tag landscape ?

The fact that you didn't apply for the tag yet points to the limited
value of it...

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)