Open Stack

Doug,

Let me poll folks on the oslo meeting today and reply back.

Thanks,
dims

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
wrote:

> Excerpts from Davanum Srinivas (dims)'s message of 2015-08-24 07:50:17
> -0400:
> > 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.
>
> We did set the freeze date early in the cycle, didn't we?
>
> We've frozen the week before the rest of the projects for the past
> 2-3 cycles, since that gives us time to focus on bugs before the
> release candidates are cut, without having to freeze for the entire
> month between the application feature freeze and the releases.
>
> Are there features in process now that are going to land in time for an
> application to use them and get *that* landed by the overall freeze for
> L3 next week?
>
> Doug
>
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/f36a9a26/attachment.html>