[openstack-dev] [kolla][vote] exception for backporting upgrades to liberty/stable
rhallise at redhat.com
Tue Mar 8 18:44:15 UTC 2016
Another tricky situation..
Given that changes to Docker were the cause of the first two backports I'd consider those to not be exceptions, but necessary adaptations that Kolla has to deal with. Unfortunately, this case seems more like an exception. But, I'm not opposed to a necessary exception since we planned to deliver on it, but ran out of time. +1 to the backport. We definitely need it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <stdake at cisco.com>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 1:15:10 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote] exception for backporting upgrades to liberty/stable
Exceptions can always be rationalized which is one reason exceptions are evil among many. The facts however speak for themselves. If we don't have a way to introduce new content in liberty when CVEs are fixed, stable/liberty is just as flawed as the data loss problem which was the original trigger for the backporting of the playbooks in the first place to introduce named volumes.
As a result, I am +1 to 1.1.0 backport.
I am –1 to a 1.2.0 because back to back releases are a pain in the ass to manage and offer little value. 1.1.1 without upgrades would be flawed just as 1.1.0 is today.
From: Steven Dake < stdake at cisco.com >
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org >
Date: Monday, March 7, 2016 at 8:03 AM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org >
Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote] exception for backporting upgrades to liberty/stable
It was never really discussed if we would back-port upgrades to liberty. This came up during an irc conversation Friday , 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.
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.
Warning  was a pretty heated argument and there may have been some swearing :)
"Should we back-port upgrades
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev