Open Stack

Thanks guys, 

Sorry - it was not clear to me if I was supposed to do anything
further.  It seems like the requirements team has approved the FFE and
the release has merged.  Is there anything further I need to do?

Thanks,
Ade

On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 14:16 -0500, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 18-08-21 14:00:41, Ben Nemec wrote:
> > Because castellan is in global-requirements, we need an FFE from
> > requirements too.  Can someone from the requirements team respond
> > to the
> > review?  Thanks.
> > 
> > On 08/16/2018 04:34 PM, Ben Nemec wrote:
> > > The backport has merged and I've proposed the release here:
> > > https://review.openstack.org/592746
> > > 
> > > On 08/15/2018 11:58 AM, Ade Lee wrote:
> > > > Done.
> > > > 
> > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/592154/
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Ade
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, 2018-08-15 at 09:20 -0500, Ben Nemec wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 08/14/2018 01:56 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> > > > > > > On 08/10/2018 10:15 AM, Ade Lee wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I'd like to request a feature freeze exception to get
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > change in for castellan.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/575800/
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > This extends the functionality of the vault backend to
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > previously uninmplemented functionality, so it should
> > > > > > > > not break
> > > > > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The castellan vault plugin is used behind barbican in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > barbican-
> > > > > > > > vault plugin.  We'd like to get this change into Rocky
> > > > > > > > so that
> > > > > > > > we can
> > > > > > > > release Barbican with complete functionality on this
> > > > > > > > backend
> > > > > > > > (along
> > > > > > > > with a complete set of passing functional tests).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This does seem fairly low risk since it's just
> > > > > > > implementing a
> > > > > > > function that
> > > > > > > previously raised a NotImplemented exception.  However,
> > > > > > > with it
> > > > > > > being so
> > > > > > > late in the cycle I think we need the release team's
> > > > > > > input on
> > > > > > > whether this
> > > > > > > is possible.  Most of the release FFE's I've seen have
> > > > > > > been for
> > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > bugs, not actual new features.  I've added that tag to
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > thread so
> > > > > > > hopefully they can weigh in.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > As far as releases go, this should be fine. If this doesn't
> > > > > > affect
> > > > > > any other
> > > > > > projects and would just be a late merging feature, as long
> > > > > > as the
> > > > > > castellan
> > > > > > team has considered the risk of adding code so late and is
> > > > > > comfortable with
> > > > > > that, this is OK.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Castellan follows the cycle-with-intermediary release
> > > > > > model, so the
> > > > > > final Rocky
> > > > > > release just needs to be done by next Thursday. I do see
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > stable/rocky
> > > > > > branch has already been created for this repo, so it would
> > > > > > need to
> > > > > > merge to
> > > > > > master first (technically stein), then get cherry-picked to
> > > > > > stable/rocky.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Okay, sounds good.  It's already merged to master so we're
> > > > > good
> > > > > there.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ade, can you get the backport proposed?
> > > > > 
> 
> I've approved it for a UC only bump
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> _____
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubs
> cribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev