Open Stack

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Sam Yaple <samuel at yaple.net> wrote:
>
> 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.

Assuming Sam meant "we have no stable branch" above, I think this is
crux of the matter. If we follow the purist developer philosophy
behind a stable branch, then maybe upgrades wouldn't be backported.
But if operators then can't count on using Liberty at that point, what
does it matter?

In the future I'm sure we can follow strict "developer level"
adherence to backports for Mitaka. So if it's not clear, +1 to
including this in 1.1.0.

> 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/

This review has been merged now.