[Openstack-operators] Fwd: [openstack-dev] [stable] Organizational changes to support stable branches

Jeremy Stanley fungi at yuggoth.org
Fri Nov 14 14:42:04 UTC 2014

On 2014-11-14 20:08:25 +1100 (+1100), Roland Chan wrote:
> Re the first 6 months of backporting: "should" would be better
> than "may" and "will" would be best. "may' sets an expectation
> that looks a lot like a shrug. It's fine as a lower bound on
> backporting behaviour, but as an expectation setter it's pretty
> weak.

We could use an IETF RFC 2119 "MUST" for everything we think is a
good idea, but the truth is that work on these projects is entirely
voluntary and we have no effective way to enforce a decree like

Also, because English is a terribly, terribly nuanced language, I
actually read that "may" as granting permission, not stating an
optional imperative in the RFC sense. E.g., backports of any
significant bug fix will be allowed during the first six months, but
after that time only critical and security bug fix backports will be
allowed... *sigh* English... perhaps we SHOULD adopt RFC 2119? ;)
Jeremy Stanley

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list