Open Stack

Thanks Thierry.

To me it sounds like even a better release model for us. We can discuss it with a team at the next team meeting and make a decision.

Renat Akhmerov
@Nokia

On 1 Jun 2017, 17:06 +0700, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>, wrote:
> Renat Akhmerov wrote:
> > On 31 May 2017, 15:08 +0700, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>, wrote:
> > > > [mistral]
> > > > mistral - blocking sqlalchemy - milestones
> > >
> > > I wonder why mistral is in requirements. Looks like tripleo-common is
> > > depending on it ? Could someone shine some light on this ? It might just
> > > mean mistral-lib is missing a few functions, and switching the release
> > > model of mistral itself might be overkill ?
> >
> > This dependency is currently needed to create custom Mistral actions. It
> > was originally not the best architecture and one of the reasons to
> > create 'mistral-lib' was in getting rid of dependency on ‘mistral’ by
> > moving all that’s needed for creating actions into a lib (plus something
> > else). The thing is that the transition is not over and APIs that we put
> > into ‘mistral-lib’ are still experimental. The plan is to complete this
> > initiative, including docs and needed refactoring, till the end of Pike.
> >
> > What possible negative consequences may we have if we switch release
> > model to "cycle-with-intermediary”?
>
> There are no "negative" consequences. There are just consequences in
> choosing a new release model, so I don't want mistral to switch to that
> model *only* because it didn't complete moving some code out of mistral
> proper into a more consumable mistral-lib. It feels like we wouldn't be
> having that discussion if the code was more adequately split :)
>
> First, the cycle-with-intermediary model means that every tag is a
> "release", which is expected to be consumed by users. You have to be
> pretty sure that it works -- there won't be any release candidates to
> protect you. This means your automated testing coverage needs to be
> pretty good.
>
> Second, the cycle-with-intermediary model is less "driven" by the
> release team -- you won't have as many reminders (like milestones), or
> best-practice deadlines (like feature freeze) to help you. Your team is
> basically doing release management internally, deciding when to release,
> when to slow down, etc.
>
> As such, this model appeals either to very young projects (which need a
> lot of flexibility and need to put things out fast), and very mature
> projects (where automated testing coverage is pretty complete, release
> liaisons take up much of the release management, and things don't change
> that often). Projects in the middle usually prefer the
> cycle-with-milestones model.
>
> > Practically, all our releases, even
> > those made after milestones, are considered stable and I don’t see
> > issues if we’ll be producing full releases every time.
>
> Yes, it sounds like you could switch to that model without too much pain.
>
> > Btw, how does
> > stable branch maintenance work in this case? I guess it should be the
> > same, one stable branch per cycle. I’d appreciate if you could clarify this.
>
> There is no change in terms of stable releases, you still maintain only
> one branch per cycle. The last intermediary release in a given cycle is
> where the stable branch for the cycle is cut.
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170601/317c940a/attachment.html>