Open Stack

This is a messy topic. I feel there's been some miscommunication and 
confusion on the issue which hopefully I can sum up.

As far as I remember it, Sam is correct, we did always plan to do 
Liberty upgrades. However, over the course of time post Tokyo these 
plans didn't really materialise, at which point Micheal kindly stepped 
forward to kick things into action [0].

Between now and then the focus shifted to "how do we get from Liberty to 
Mitaka", and the original discussion of moving between minor Liberty 
releases fell by the wayside. I think this is where the confusion has 
arisen.

As I mentioned before I have been opposed to backporting features to 
stable/liberty, as this is against the philosophy of a stable branch 
etc. etc. However, as has been mentioned many times before, this is a 
new project, hindsight is a great thing. Ideally users running Liberty 
who encounter a CVE could be told to go to Mitaka, but in reality this 
is an unreasonable expectation and operators who have gone on our 
previous release notes that Liberty is ready to rock will feel screwed over.

So based on the above I am +1 to get upgrades into Liberty, I hope this 
makes sense.

Regards,
-Paul

[0] 
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-December/081467.html

On 07/03/16 16:00, Sam Yaple wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com
> <mailto:stdake at cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi folks,
>
>     It was never really discussed if we would back-port upgrades to
>     liberty.  This came up during  an irc conversation Friday [1], and a
>     vote was requested.  Tthe facts of the discussion distilled are:
>
>       * We never agreed as a group to do back-port of upgrade during our
>         back-port discussion
>       * An operator that can't upgrade her Z version of Kolla (1.1.1
>         from 1.1.0) is stuck without CVE or OSSA corrections.
>       * Because of a lack of security upgrades, the individual
>         responsible for executing the back-port would abandon the work
>         (but not tuse the abaondon feature for of gerrit for changes
>         already in the queue)
>
>     Since we never agreed, in that IRC discussion a vote was requested,
>     and I am administering the vote.  The vote request was specifically
>     should we have a back-port of upgrade in 1.1.0.  Both parties agreed
>     they would live with the results.
>
>     I would like to point out that not porting upgrades means that the
>     liberty branch would essentially become abandoned unless some other
>     brave soul takes up a backport.  I would also like to point out that
>     that is yet another exception much like thin-containers back-port
>     which was accepted.  See how exceptions become the way to the dark
>     side.  We really need to stay exception free going forward (in
>     Mitaka and later) as much as possible to prevent expectations that
>     we will make exceptions when none should be made.
>
> This is not an exception. This was always a requirement. If you disagree
> with that then we have never actually had a stable branch. The fact is
> we _always_ needed z version upgrades for Kolla. It was _always_ the
> plan to have them. Feel free to reference the IRC logs and our prior
> mid-cycle and our Tokyo upgrade sessions. What changed was time and
> peoples memories and that's why this is even a conversation.
>
>     Please vote +1 (backport) or –1 (don’t backport).  An abstain in
>     this case is the same as voting –1, so please vote either way.  I
>     will leave the voting open for 1 week until April 14th.  If there I
>     a majority in favor, I will close voting early.  We currently
>     require 6 votes for majority as our core team consists of 11 people.
>
>     Regards,
>     -steve
>
>
>     [1]
>     http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23kolla/%23kolla.2016-03-04.log.html#t2016-03-04T18:23:26
>
>     Warning [1] was a pretty heated argument and there may have been
>     some swearing :)
>
>     voting.
>
>     "Should we back-port upgrades
>
>     __________________________________________________________________________
>     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>     Unsubscribe:
>     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> Obviously I am +1 on committing to a stable _/stable_/ branch. And that
> has always required Z upgrades. Luckily the work we did in master is
> also usable for z upgrades. Without the ability to perform an update
> after a vulnerability, we have to stable branch.
>
> I would remind every one we _did_ have this conversation in Tokyo when
> we discussed pinning to stable versions of other projects rather than
> using head of thier stable branch. We currently do that and there is a
> review for a tool to make that even easier to maintain [1]. There was
> even talk of a bot to purpose these bumps in versions. That means z
> upgrades were expected for Liberty. Anyone thinking otherwise has a
> short memory.
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248481/
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>