Open Stack

On 09/08/2015 03:32 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2015-09-08 14:11:48 -0400:
>> On 09/08/2015 01:07 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Dean Troyer's message of 2015-09-08 11:20:47 -0500:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Doug Hellmann
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to come up with some way to express the time other than
>>>>> N+M because in the middle of a cycle it can be confusing to know
>>>>> what that means (if I want to deprecate something in August am I
>>>>> far enough through the current cycle that it doesn't count?).
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, as we start moving more projects to doing intermediate releases
>>>>> the notion of a "release" vs. a "cycle" will drift apart, so we
>>>>> want to talk about "stable releases" not just any old release.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've always thought the appropriate equivalent for projects not following
>>>> the (old) integrated release cadence was for N == six months.  It sets
>>>> approx. the same pace and expectation with users/deployers.
>>>>
>>>> For those deployments tracking trunk, a similar approach can be taken, in
>>>> that deprecating a config option in M3 then removing it in N1 might be too
>>>> quick, but rather wait at least the same point in the following release
>>>> cycle to increment 'N'.
>>>>
>>>> dt
>>>>
>>>
>>> Making it explicitly date-based would simplify tracking, to be sure.
>>
>> I would agree that the M3 -> N0 drop can be pretty quick, it can be 6
>> weeks (which I've seen happen). However N == six months might make FFE
>> deprecation lands in one release run into FFE in the next. For the CD
>> case my suggestion is > 3 months. Because if you aren't CDing in
>> increments smaller than that, and hence seeing the deprecation, you
>> aren't really doing the C part of CDing.
>>
>>     -Sean
>>
> 
> Do those 3 months need to span more than one stable release? For
> projects doing intermediary releases, there may be several releases
> within a 3 month period.

Yes. 1 stable release branch AND 3 months linear time is what I'd
consider reasonable.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net