Open Stack

We can do the opposite to avoid more and more ACLs:

ALLOW push on some specific stable branches

[access "refs/heads/stable/kilo"]
  push = allow group ***-stable-maint

[access "refs/heads/stable/juno"]
  push = allow group ***-stable-maint


BLOCK push on others stable branches

[access "refs/heads/stable/juno"]
  push =  block group "Anonymous Users"


Cedric/ZZelle at IRC





On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:

> On 2015-06-04 16:23:12 +0200 (+0200), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> > Why do we even drop stable branches? If anything, it introduces
> > unneeded problems to those who have their scripts/cookbooks set to
> > chase those branches. They would need to switch to eol tag. Why not
> > just leaving them sitting there, marked read only?
> >
> > It becomes especially important now that we say that stable HEAD *is*
> > a stable release.
>
> It's doable, but we'll need ACL changes applied to every project
> participating in this release model to reject new change submissions
> and prevent anyone from approving them on every branch which reaches
> its EOL date. These ACLs will also grow longer and longer over time
> as we need to add new sections for each EOL branch.
>
> Also, it seems to me like a "feature" if downstream consumers have
> to take notice and explicitly adjust their tooling to intentionally
> continue deploying a release for which we no longer provide support
> and security updates.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20150604/a8005971/attachment.html>