Open Stack

On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 08:09 -0600, Dolph Mathews wrote:
> This was discussed in #openstack-dev, as I recall.

I see this:

  http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-dev/%23openstack-dev.2013-01-16.log
  2013-01-16T16:41:09  <dolphm> henrynash: i assume my change needs to
  come in the migration sequence ahead of yours, correct?

and no discussion about impact on people's ability to upgrade.

But even if it was fully discussed on irc ... frankly, that's not
enough. This is a big deal and needs broader input than whoever happened
to be listening on #openstack-dev at the time.

Also, a summary of what was discussed on #openstack-dev in the review
would have been good.

> The goal in these migrations was to support folsom <--> grizzly, not
> necessarily supporting intermediate milestones. I'm not aware of
> anyone doing continuous deployments of keystone, if but if migrating
> commit to commit is the community's expectation, I'm more happy to
> ensure that happens moving forward -- I just wasn't aware that was a
> concern here.

Commit to commit is one thing, but this even breaks grizzly-2 to
grizzly-3.

Cheers,
Mark.