+1 from me too.... UpgradeImpact is a much better term. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com] > Sent: 07 January 2014 17:53 > To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility > > On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 11:04 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Matt Riedemann wrote: > > > There is discussion in this thread about "wouldn't it be nice to > > > have a tag on commits for changes that impact upgrades?". There is. > > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/0166 > > > 19.html > > > > > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Including_external > > > _references > > > > > > Here is an example of a patch going through the gate now with > > > UpgradeImpact: > > > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62815/ > > > > The good thing about "UpgradeImpact" is that it's less subjective than > > "OpsImpact", and I think it catches what matters: > > backward-incompatible changes, upgrades needing manual intervention > > (or smart workarounds in packaging), etc. > > > > Additional benefit is that it's relevant for more than just the "ops" > > population: packagers and the release notes writers also need to track > > those. > > +1 for UpgradeImpact > > -jay > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev