Open Stack

Doug,

Since we have not announced a freeze, we should give folks at least another
week. I'd defer to you and lifeless about date for stable branch creation
and version capping etc. If we could give a bit more time for the new oslo
libraries coming out this cycle, that would be great as well.

Thanks,
dims



On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
wrote:

> [Moving this discussion onto the list, so the background isn’t lost.]
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net>
> > Subject: Re: oslo freeze this week?
> > Date: August 23, 2015 at 6:42:33 PM EDT
> > To: Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
> > Cc: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>, Davanum Srinivas <
> davanum at gmail.com>
> >
> > On 24 August 2015 at 10:21, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Aug 23, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 24 August 2015 at 09:28, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> I have marked on my version of the release schedule that we will have
> the Oslo libraries frozen this week. Are we still planning to do that? We
> should figure out what that means as far as creating stable branches and
> version caps and all of those things that caused us so much trouble last
> cycle.
> >>>
> >>> We're not capping anything. We're depending on constraints to carry us
> >>> forward. The constraints for tox stuff works but isn't widely
> >>> deployed: it is partly waiting on a governance change... I think we
> >>> should use this as a forcing function for projects to opt-in to that.
> >>> grenade uses constraints so only stable branches should be affected by
> >>> that.
> >>
> >> I’m not sure what governance change you mean?
> >
> > Turns out we should extend the project testing interface as part of
> > adding the contraints targets for tox. Nakato is drafting that at the
> > moment.
> >
> >>>> Do we think we have enough of the constraints stuff going to not cut
> stable branches, yet, and work using capped requirements? Do we want to try
> not capping this cycle?
> >>>
> >>> stable branches are orthogonal to constraints IMO. If the only reason
> >>> for the stable branch is the capped requirements, then I would not
> >>> make the branch.
> >>
> >> We will (most likely) have stable branches for libraries, at some
> point, to handle bug fixes. The question is do we want them now or later?
> One argument for creating them at some point before we actually need them
> is that fewer people can create branches than can approve patches on them,
> so if we end up needing a stable release of a library we want to go ahead
> and have it.
> >>
> >> We might be able to go without stable branches for now, and create them
> closer to the end of the cycle. I think we’ll end up using the same
> versions we have now, more or less, so I’m not sure it buys us that much to
> wait.
> >>
> >> If want to try to avoid library stable branches, we need to add jobs to
> test the master versions of libraries against stable versions of
> applications to avoid regressions. Those are likely to break quickly
> because of other requirements changes (minimums raising), at which point we
> have to stop what we’re doing to reconfigure test jobs and create a stable
> branch before continuing work on the library’s master branch. So I’m
> inclined, for the sake of “ease of reasoning” to just go ahead and create
> the stable branches, even if we don’t cap requirements.
> >
> > Sure, I have no real opinion on that presently: its something I have
> > weakly held and not reasoned-in-details opinions.
> >
> >>>
> >>>> We should probably discuss this on the -dev list, but I wanted to
> spur some thinking. I’ll start a thread after the release team meeting
> tomorrow.
> >>>
> >>> Cool.
> >>
> >> So now that I’ve gone and continued the thread, would you object to me
> forwarding this message to the mailing list to avoid us having to replay it
> there? We can continue the discussion there if there’s more to say.
> >
> > No objections.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> > --
> > Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
> > Distinguished Technologist
> > HP Converged Cloud
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150824/af4bb9ed/attachment.html>