Open Stack

On 07/15/2015 12:05 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> The "cost" of keeping stable branches around without CI is more a
> branding cost than a technical cost, I think.

Which is why I suggested to rename the branches, if it poses a problem.
For example eol/icehouse would have been fine.

> An OpenStack upstream
> stable branch means a number of things, and lack of CI isn't one of
> them. We also have tooling that looks at "stable/*" and applies rules to
> it. If we have kept stable/icehouse upstream, it would have been renamed
> no-more-tested/icehouse or something to make sure we don't call two
> completely different things under the same name.

Sure.

> It feels like you're (or were) mostly after a private zone to share
> icehouse security patches

Yes. And I was expecting a private security gerrit for that.

Thomas