Open Stack

Hi,

If we can stick with upstream PostgresSQL that would be really nice.
Otherwise security updates and regular package update will be a burden of
package maintainers. Ideally we should have as less forked packages as
possible.

--
Best regards,
Sergii Golovatiuk,
Skype #golserge
IRC #holser

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Aleksandr Didenko <adidenko at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Downgrading for no reason could bring us to big trouble and bad user
> experience
>
> +1 to this. Let's keep PostgreSQL 9.3.
>
> Regards,
> Alex
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Artem Silenkov <asilenkov at mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> Vote for update.
>>
>> 1. We have already shipped 9.3 in fuel-7.0. Downgrading such complicated
>> package without any reason is not good thing at all. User experience could
>> suffer a lot.
>> 2. The next reason is tests. We have tested only 9.3, 9.2 was not tested
>> at all. I'm sure we could bring serious regressions by downgrading,
>> 3. Postgres-9.3 is not custom. It was taken from KOJI packages and
>> backported without any modification. It means that this package is
>> officially tested and supported by Fedora, which is good.
>> 4. One shipped package more is not a huge burden for us. It was
>> officially backported from official sources, tested and suits our need
>> perfectly. Why do we need to play such dangerous games downgrading for no
>> reasons?
>>
>> Let me notice that all packages are maintained by mos-packaging team now
>> And we are perfectly ok with postgres-9.3.
>>
>> Downgrading for no reason could bring us to big trouble and bad user
>> experience.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Artem Silenkov
>> ---
>> MOs-Packaging
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski <
>> bpiotrowski at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-12-14 13:12, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
>>> > My opinion here is that I don't like that we're going to build and
>>> > maintain one more custom package (just take a look at this patch [4]
>>> > if you don't believe me), but I'd like to hear more opinion here.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Igor
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1523544
>>> > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/249656/
>>> > [3] http://goo.gl/forms/Hk1xolKVP0
>>> > [4] https://review.fuel-infra.org/#/c/14623/
>>> >
>>> >
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>>
>>> I also think we should stay with what CentOS provides. Increasing
>>> maintenance burden for something that can be implemented without bells
>>> and whistles sounds like a no-go.
>>>
>>> Bartłomiej
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20151214/bda261eb/attachment.html>