On 12/21/2018 7:58 AM, Eduardo Gonzalez wrote:
> I don't fully understand what's the process for extended maintenance
> mode, who is responsible of the management and to take care of it. Is
> the core group responsible at all of the branch? Change any policy
> regarding what can be merged, backport, etc?
Details are in [1][2].
The same project stable core team is responsible for the branch, it
doesn't transfer to some new stable EM core team.
The appropriate fix model is essentially the same - only backport fixes,
not features, no new dependencies, etc. Gauge risk vs reward as normal.
>
> Ocata branch has been unmaintained for a few months until a couple of
> patches fixes before putting into EOL. If someone wants to maintain
> ocata, I guess we should tag as EM.
Generally if CI is still working for the branch and people are using it,
and it's not a burden, it's fine to leave it open. If it starts failing
CI and no one is caring for it (fixing CI issues etc) then it's
acceptable to move to EOL after 6 months (see the "Unmaintained" section
in [2]).
Just pointing out that the last successful run of at least one of the periodic kolla image publish job was at 2019-01-07T06:06:47. If anyone is using Ocata and wants to maintain this, please get in touch. Otherwise I guess we'll mark is as unmaintained on 2019-07-07.
It does seem a bit wasteful of CI resources to have 6 months of failing periodic jobs. Should we disable them on the ocata branch until a volunteer steps forward?
>
> Should the core group vote this decision or is something decided based
> of people whiling to maintaining the branch?
It's really up to the core group. If there are people willing to
maintain the branch outside of the core group, they should work with the
core group, essentially like a liaison.
[1]
https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20180301-stable-branch-eol.html
[2] https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html
--
Thanks,
Matt