Open Stack

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
wrote:

> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Dean Troyer's message of 2015-04-08 09:42:31 -0500:
> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The question is, how should we proceed there ? This is new procedure,
> so
> >>> I'm a bit unclear on the best way forward and would like to pick our
> >>> collective brain. Should we just push requirements cap for all
> OpenStack
> >>> libs and create stable branches from the last tagged release everywhere
> >>> ? What about other libraries ? Should we push a cap there too ? Should
> >>> we just ignore the whole thing for the Kilo release for all non-Oslo
> stuff
> >>> ?
> >>
> >> Provided that represents the code being used for testing at this point,
> and
> >> I believe it does, this seems like a sensible default action.  Next
> cycle
> >> we can make a bit more noise about when this default action will occur,
> >> probably pick one of the other existing dates late in the cycle such as
> RC
> >> or string freeze or whatever. (Maybe that already happened and I can't
> >> remember?)
> >
> > I had hoped to have the spec approved in time to cut releases around
> > the time Oslo did (1 week before feature freeze for applications,
> > to allow us to merge the requirements cap before applications
> > generate their RC1). At this point, I agree that we should go with
> > the most recently tagged versions where possible. It sounds like
> > we have a couple of libs that need releases, and we should evaluate
> > those on a case-by-case basis, defaulting to not updating the stable
> > requirements unless absolutely necessary.
>
> OK, here is a plan, let me know if it makes sense.
>
> If necessary:
> Cinder releases python-cinderclient 1.1.2
> Designate releases python-designateclient 1.1.2
> Horizon releases django_openstack_auth 1.2.0
> Ironic releases python-ironicclient 0.5.1
>
> Then we cap in requirements stable/kilo branch (once it's cut, when all
> RC1s are done):
>
> python-barbicanclient >=3.0.1 <3.1.0
> python-ceilometerclient >=1.0.13 <1.1.0
> python-cinderclient >=1.1.0 <1.2.0
> python-designateclient >=1.0.0 <1.2.0
> python-heatclient >=0.3.0 <0.5.0
> python-glanceclient >=0.15.0 <0.18.0
> python-ironicclient >=0.2.1 <0.6.0
> python-keystoneclient >=1.1.0 <1.4.0
> python-neutronclient >=2.3.11 <2.4.0
> python-novaclient >=2.22.0 <2.24.0
> python-saharaclient >=0.8.0 <0.9.0
> python-swiftclient >=2.2.0 <2.5.0
> python-troveclient >=1.0.7 <1.1.0
> glance_store >=0.3.0 <0.5.0
> keystonemiddleware >=1.5.0 <1.6.0
> pycadf >=0.8.0 <0.9.0
> django_openstack_auth>=1.1.7,!=1.1.8 <1.3.0
>
> As discussed we'll add openstackclient while we are at it:
>
> python-openstackclient>=1.0.0,<1.1.0
>
> That should trickle down to multiple syncs in multiple projects, which
> we'd merge in a RC2. Next time we'll do it all the same time Oslo did
> it, to avoid creating unnecessary respins (live and learn).
>
> Anything I missed ?
>

I think we should also run
https://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/master/tools/cap.py  to cap
all non openstack owned dependencies at there current versions.


>
> Bonus question: will the openstack proposal bot actually propose
> stable/kilo g-r changes to proposed/kilo branches ?
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150409/96a793c1/attachment.html>