Open Stack

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:35:24PM +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19 2015, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> 
> > In my mind the “independent” release model was originally meant to mean that
> > the project was completely on their own, doing potentially incorrect and random
> > releases. It wasn’t something I anticipated projects *wanting* to use. It
> > evolved to mean something closer to the opposite of the “managed” tag, but I
> > think we should pull back from that use. We want projects to clearly indicate
> > which of the other cycle-oriented models they intend to follow, and we want
> > something cycle-based for most projects to help distributors and deployers
> > understand which versions of things should be used together.
> >
> > If neither of the existing cycle-based tags meets the needs of a large number
> > of projects, then we should have a clear description of the model actually
> > being followed so we can tag the projects following it. That may mean, in this
> > case, a cycle-with-intermediary-following or something similar, to mean “we
> > have cyclical releases but they come after the cycle of most of the other
> > projects”.
> 
> Gnocchi is applying "release early, release often" so there is no really
> any big cycle like older OpenStack projects. Major or minor versions are
> released from time to time, and more often than 6 months in general.
> 
> It would be good to support that as being *normal*, not "potentially
> incorrect and random"!
> 
> > It’s unfortunate that we have so many tools that depend on the “stable/“
> > prefix. I looked, and in addition to devstack-gate the release tools assume the
> > name stable. It’s not something we can change this cycle, because of the other
> > priorities, but it would be useful to think about whether we could treat a
> > series/ prefix the same way as stable/ in those tools, to have an option for
> > the branch name. I have no idea how much work that would be. In the mean time,
> > I agree that using the tag as the true indicator that the stable policy is
> > being followed is a good compromise.
> 
> And by the way, it's a shame that the release:has-stable-branches cannot
> be applied for release:independent. We have stable branches in Gnocchi,
> we cannot have that tag currently for that only reason. Worse, we often
> hit issue about assumption made about how projects are released. See my
> recent thread about the devstack-gate based jobs failing for stable
> branches.
> 
> It'd be awesome to free those projects and support more flexible release
> schedule for project having a different velocity.

This is actually the idea of the cycle-with-intermediary model. Projects
following this model may release as early and often as they like, and
choose a release near the same time as the coordinated release, to be
the "cycle" release and the base for the stable branch.

// jim