Open Stack

It's important to note that given the change in the upgrade method, there
will be no actual downgrade of the package, since Fuel 8.0 Admin Node will
be installed on a clean system. So, from the upgrade standpoint I see no
obstacles to have 9.2 in Fuel 8.0. I also greet any chance to reduce the
number of packages maintained in-house.

Depending on native packages is also important in the light of the
initiative to separate deployment of Fuel from installation of operating
system [1].

[1]
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/separate-fuel-node-provisioning

--
Best regards,
Oleg Gelbukh

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Sergii Golovatiuk <
sgolovatiuk at mirantis.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/f68a0ac7/attachment.html>