On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Tony Breeds <tony at bakeyournoodle.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 08:42:48AM +0200, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > > I think it would also make sense to *release* on the boundary of the > switch; > > so that it’s clear which phase a release followed. > > What do PTLs / stable CPLs think? > I would be for this, or at least encourage it. I've tried to do this with keystone as well. When one release wraps up, I go through potential candidates to backport and release a new version. I did this with mitaka when we tagged newton rc1 ( https://github.com/openstack/releases/commit/1b0f12e1691fca956ae8d69cbc41737958a0a27f), and I did this with liberty when we tagged mitaka rc1. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20161010/64648b99/attachment.html>