Open Stack

Agreed. All I am saying is that as long as there was no change in the
policy, projects are expected to keep up.

I see that upper-constraints.txt mentioned in the email several times.
I believe it's the least that the project could do to fix the branch,
and lack of the fix doesn't seem like a good enough reason to drop the
ball in the middle (for the project as a whole, not for any specific
contributor). Other projects spent some time upfront and adopted
constraints quite a while ago. I am surprised that there are still
stable branches that don't do that. It's so much easier to maintain
them with constraints in place!

Ihar

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> On 2017-03-01 11:36:47 -0800 (-0800), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy
>> <pshchelokovskyy at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> > With all the above, the question is should we really fix the gates for the
>> > mitaka branch now? According to OpenStack release page [1] the Mitaka
>> > release will reach end-of-life on April 10, 2017.
>>
>> Yes we should. It's part of the contract with consumers that rely on
>> follows:stable-policy tag owned by Ironic and other projects.
>
> It's a two-way street though. As a community we agreed to extend
> stable support timelines on the promise that the people consuming
> those would step up to keep them testable. If key projects are
> having trouble testing stable/mitaka now and the people relying on
> that aren't helping fix the situation, then it's time to again
> reevaluate our earlier choices for support duration.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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