Open Stack

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 8:29 PM Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/31/19 8:21 PM, Kendall Nelson wrote:
> > Hello Everyone!
> >
> > Development Focus
> > -----------------
> > We are now past the Train-2 milestone, and entering the last development phase
> > of the cycle. Teams should be focused on implementing planned work for the
> > cycle.Now is  a good time to review those plans and reprioritize anything if
> > needed based on the what progress has been made and what looks realistic to
> > complete in the next few weeks.
> >
> > General Information
> > -------------------
> > The following cycle-with-intermediary deliverables have not done any
> > intermediary release yet during this cycle. The cycle-with-rc release model is
> > more suited for deliverables that plan to be released only once per cycle.
>
> I respectfully disagree. I will reserve my opinion on whether cycle-with-rc
> suits *anyone*, but in our case I'd prefer to have an option of releasing
> something in the middle of a cycle even if we don't exercise this option way too
> often.
>
> I'm not an ironic PTL, bit anyway please note that I'm -1 on the change for any
> of our projects.

I agree with Dmitry. cycle-with-intermediary model allows project
teams to release
somethings at any time during a release when they want. On the other hand,
cycle-with-intermediary means at least one release along with a release cycle.
"cycle-with-rc" means such deliverable can only *one* release per cycle.
"cycle-with-rc" might be a good option for some projects but I think
it is not forced.

If some deliverable tends to have less changes and it is not worth
cutting a release,
another option might be "independent". My understanding is that
"independent" release
model does not allow us to have stable branches, so it might be a
thing considered carefully
when we switch some deliverable to "independent".

Talking about horizon plugins, as a neutron release liaison,
neutron-fwaas/vpnaas-dashboard
hit similar situation  to ironic-ui. we don't have any substantial
changes till now in this cycle.
I guess this situation may continues in further releases in most
horizon plugins.
I am not sure which release model is appropriate.
horizon adopts release-with-rc model now and horizon plugins
are usually assumed to work with a specific release of horizon, so
"independent" might not fit.
release-with-intermediary or release-with-rc may fit, but there are
cases where they have
only infra related changes in a cycle.

Thanks,
Akihiro Motoki

>
> Dmitry
>
> > As a
> > result, we will be proposing to change the release model for the following
> > deliverables:
> >
> > blazar-dashboard
> >
> > cloudkitty-dashboard
> > ec2-api
> > freezer-web-ui
> > freezer
> > heat-agents
> > heat-dashboard
> > ironic-ui
> > karbor-dashboard
> > karbor
> > kuryr-kubernetes
> > magnum-ui
> > manila-ui
> > masakari-dashboard
> > monasca-agent
> > monasca-api
> > monasca-ceilometer
> > monasca-events-api
> > monasca-kibana-plugin
> > monasca-log-api
> > monasca-notification
> > monasca-persister
> > monasca-thresh
> > monasca-transform
> > monasca-ui
> > murano-agent
> > networking-baremetal
> > networking-generic-switch
> > networking-hyperv
> > neutron-fwaas-dashboard
> > neutron-vpnaas-dashboard
> > requirements
> > sahara-extra
> > senlin-dashboard
> > solum-dashboard
> > tacker-horizon
> > tricircle
> > vitrage-dashboard
> > vitrage
> > watcher-dashboard
> >
> >
> > PTLs and release liaisons for each of those deliverables can either +1 the
> > release model changewhen we get them pushed, or propose an intermediary release
> > for that deliverable. In absence of answer by the start of R-10 week we'll
> > consider that the switch to cycle-with-rc is preferable.
> >
> > Upcoming Deadlines & Dates
> > --------------------------
> > Non-client library freeze: September 05 (R-6 week)
> > Client library freeze: September 12 (R-5 week)
> > Train-3 milestone: September 12 (R-5 week)
> >
> > -Kendall (diablo_rojo) + the Release Management Team
> >
>
>