Open Stack

On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 15:57 +0000, Steven Hardy wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We discussed this in our meeting[1] this week, and agreed a ML
> discussion
> to gain consensus and give folks visibility of the outcome would be a
> good
> idea.
> 
> In summary, we adopted a more permissive "release branch" policy[2]
> for our
> stable/liberty branches, where feature backports would be allowed,
> provided
> they worked with liberty and didn't break backwards compatibility.
> 
> The original idea was really to provide a mechanism to "catch up"
> where
> features are added e.g to liberty OpenStack components late in the
> cycle
> and TripleO requires changes to integrate with them.
> 
> However, the reality has been that the permissive backport policy has
> been
> somewhat abused (IMHO) with a large number of major features being
> proposed
> for backport, and in a few cases this has broken downstream (RDO)
> consumers
> of TripleO.
> 
> Thus, I would propose that from Mitaka, we revise our backport policy
> to
> simply align with the standard stable branch model observed by all
> projects[3].
> 
> Hopefully this will allow us to retain the benefits of the stable
> branch
> process, but provide better stability for downstream consumers of
> these
> branches, and minimise confusion regarding what is a permissable
> backport.
> 
> If we do this, only backports that can reasonably be considered
> "Appropriate fixes"[4] will be valid backports - in the majority of
> cases
> this will mean bugfixes only, and large features where the risk of
> regression is significant will not be allowed.
> 
> What are peoples thoughts on this?

Yes. The relaxed feature backporting for Mitaka has been quite abused.
Our upstream has been in a "optimized for backport" mode for some time
now. So much so that I think you could think of Mitaka has being sort
of a featureless release at this point because aside from a few
exceptions to the undercloud itself we haven't added that many Mitaka
features that weren't also backported to Liberty.

++ for the idea of getting back to a normal upstream release/branching
models.

Dan

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve
> 
> [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2016/tripleo.2016
> -02-09-14.01.log.html
> [2] https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-specs/blob/master/specs/libe
> rty/release-branch.rst
> [3] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html
> [4] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html
> #appropriate-fixes
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> _____
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubs
> cribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev