Open Stack

On 05/29/2015 10:18 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> What about release notes? How can we now communicate some changes that
> require operator consideration or action?
> 
> Ihar
> 
> On 05/29/2015 03:41 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
> 
>> TL;DR: - We propose to stop tagging coordinated point releases
>> (like 2015.1.1) - We continue maintaining stable branches as a
>> trusted source of stable updates for all projects though
> 
>> Long version:
> 
>> At the "stable branch" session in Vancouver we discussed recent 
>> evolutions in the stable team processes and how to further adapt
>> the work of the team in a "big tent" world.
> 
>> One of the key questions there was whether we should continue
>> doing stable point releases. Those were basically tags with the
>> same version number ("2015.1.1") that we would periodically push to
>> the stable branches for all projects.
> 
>> Those create three problems.
> 
>> (1) Projects do not all follow the same versioning, so some
>> projects (like Swift) were not part of the "stable point releases".
>> More and more projects are considering issuing intermediary
>> releases (like Swift does), like Ironic. That would result in a
>> variety of version numbers, and ultimately less and less projects
>> being able to have a common "2015.1.1"-like version.
> 
>> (2) Producing those costs a non-trivial amount of effort on a very
>> small team of volunteers, especially with projects caring about
>> stable branches in various amounts. We were constantly missing the 
>> pre-announced dates on those ones. Looks like that effort could be 
>> better spent improving the stable branches themselves and keeping
>> them working.
> 
>> (3) The resulting "stable point releases" are mostly useless.
>> Stable branches are supposed to be always usable, and the
>> "released" version did not undergo significantly more testing.
>> Issuing them actually discourages people from taking whatever point
>> in stable branches makes the most sense for them, testing and
>> deploying that.
> 
>> The suggestion we made during that session (and which was approved
>> by the session participants) is therefore to just get rid of the
>> "stable point release" concept altogether for non-libraries. That
>> said:
> 
>> - we'd still do individual point releases for libraries (for
>> critical bugs and security issues), so that you can still depend on
>> a specific version there
> 
>> - we'd still very much maintain stable branches (and actually focus
>> our efforts on that work) to ensure they are a continuous source of
>> safe upgrades for users of a given series
> 
>> Now we realize that the cross-section of our community which was
>> present in that session might not fully represent the consumers of
>> those artifacts, which is why we expand the discussion on this
>> mailing-list (and soon on the operators ML).
> 
>> If you were a consumer of those and will miss them, please explain
>> why. In particular, please let us know how consuming that version
>> (which was only made available every n months) is significantly
>> better than picking your preferred time and get all the current
>> stable branch HEADs at that time.
> 
>> Thanks in advance for your feedback,
> 
>> [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-relmgt-stable-branch
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
> 

for release notes just do git log between commit hashes?

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150529/9cea40f0/attachment.pgp>