[openstack-dev] [oslo] versioning and releases

Thierry Carrez thierry at openstack.org
Thu Jun 12 16:03:44 UTC 2014

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 12:09 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 12:24 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Background:
>>>>> We have two types of oslo libraries. Libraries like oslo.config and
>>>>> oslo.messaging were created by extracting incubated code, updating the
>>>>> public API, and packaging it. Libraries like cliff and taskflow were
>>>>> created as standalone packages from the beginning, and later adopted
>>>>> by the oslo team to manage their development and maintenance.
>>>>> Incubated libraries have been released at the end of a release cycle,
>>>>> as with the rest of the integrated packages. Adopted libraries have
>>>>> historically been released "as needed" during their development. We
>>>>> would like to synchronize these so that all oslo libraries are
>>>>> officially released with the rest of the software created by OpenStack
>>>>> developers.
>> Could you outline the benefits of syncing with the integrated release ?
> Sure!
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2012-November/003345.html
> :)

Heh :) I know why *you* prefer it synced. Was just curious to see if
Doug thought the same way :P

>> Personally I see a few drawbacks to this approach:
>> We dump the new version on consumers usually around RC time, which is
>> generally a bad time to push a new version of a	dependency and detect
>> potential breakage. Consumers just seem to get the new version at the
>> worst possible time.
>> It also prevents from spreading the work all over the cycle. For example
>> it may have been more successful to have the oslo.messaging new release
>> by milestone-1 to make sure it's adopted by projects in milestone-2 or
>> milestone-3... rather than have it ready by milestone-3 and expect all
>> projects to use it by consuming alphas during the cycle.
>> Now if *all* projects were continuously consuming alpha versions, most
>> of those drawbacks would go away.
> Yes, that's the plan. Those issues are acknowledged and we're reasonably
> confident the alpha versions plan will address them.

I agree that if we release alphas often and most projects consume them
instead of jump from stable release to stable release, we have all the
benefits without the drawbacks.

Thierry Carrez (ttx)

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list