As I'm sure everyone's aware, Folsom reached its scheduled end of support at the time of the Havana release. A couple days ago we removed the CI jobs for stable/folsom branches and related bits in devstack-gate specific to supporting those. I'm going to abandon the currently open reviews for branch:stable/folsom in Gerrit with a link to this ML thread, at which point we should signed-tag the tip of the stable/folsom branch with the name folsom-eol on each of the following projects: * openstack/ceilometer * openstack/cinder * openstack/glance * openstack/horizon * openstack/keystone * openstack/neutron * openstack/nova * openstack/swift After which we can delete those branches. In addition we should probably do something about these which also have open stable/folsom branches currently: * openstack-dev/devstack * openstack-dev/grenade * openstack/openstack-manuals * openstack/oslo-incubator * openstack/requirements * openstack/tempest -- Jeremy Stanley
On 2013-11-15 19:29:52 +0000 (+0000), Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...]
* openstack/ceilometer * openstack/cinder * openstack/glance * openstack/horizon * openstack/keystone * openstack/neutron * openstack/nova * openstack/swift [...]
I have created signed tags named folsom-eol on the tip of the stable/folsom branch in each of the above projects and then deleted those branches (after triple-checking they showed up correctly on our git mirrors).
* openstack-dev/devstack * openstack-dev/grenade * openstack/openstack-manuals * openstack/oslo-incubator * openstack/requirements * openstack/tempest
Any input as to what we should do about the stable/folsom branches on each of these? Contact the project teams responsible individually, or just treat them like the integrated release stable branches? -- Jeremy Stanley
On 2013-11-19 18:53:08 +0000 (+0000), Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2013-11-15 19:29:52 +0000 (+0000), Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...]
I have created signed tags named folsom-eol on the tip of the stable/folsom branch in each of the above projects and then deleted those branches (after triple-checking they showed up correctly on our git mirrors).
* openstack-dev/devstack * openstack-dev/grenade * openstack/openstack-manuals * openstack/oslo-incubator * openstack/requirements * openstack/tempest
Any input as to what we should do about the stable/folsom branches on each of these? Contact the project teams responsible individually, or just treat them like the integrated release stable branches?
After further research it appears the same process was previously followed for these projects as well, so I've continued that tradition. -- Jeremy Stanley
Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2013-11-15 19:29:52 +0000 (+0000), Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...]
* openstack/ceilometer * openstack/cinder * openstack/glance * openstack/horizon * openstack/keystone * openstack/neutron * openstack/nova * openstack/swift [...]
I have created signed tags named folsom-eol on the tip of the stable/folsom branch in each of the above projects and then deleted those branches (after triple-checking they showed up correctly on our git mirrors).
Cool, thx for handling this.
* openstack-dev/devstack * openstack-dev/grenade * openstack/openstack-manuals * openstack/oslo-incubator * openstack/requirements * openstack/tempest
Any input as to what we should do about the stable/folsom branches on each of these? Contact the project teams responsible individually, or just treat them like the integrated release stable branches?
I would definitely contact the owners before removing the branches. Most of them are just supporting QA branches so they should cause no trouble. oslo-incubator should also be a no-brainer. openstack-manuals might be more complex, as there might be some job out there still publishing old doc versions, and might make some sense to keep that alive. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)
On 2013-11-20 11:06:20 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
I would definitely contact the owners before removing the branches. Most of them are just supporting QA branches so they should cause no trouble. oslo-incubator should also be a no-brainer. openstack-manuals might be more complex, as there might be some job out there still publishing old doc versions, and might make some sense to keep that alive.
Well, any branch-specific jobs and job filters were already removed last week, so at this point they probably wouldn't have run (or would have run under the wrong circumstances) anyway. But I'll go ahead and give Docs and QA a heads up that this has been done. Thanks! -- Jeremy Stanley
participants (2)
-
Jeremy Stanley
-
Thierry Carrez