Open Stack

On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 17:14 +0100, Sean Mooney wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 07:57 -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
> > Since we take particular pride in our community participation, the fact
> > that we have not been able or willing to do this correctly reflects very
> > poorly on us.  I would rather that we not do this at all than do it
> > badly, so I think this should be the last release with a name.  I've
> > proposed that change here:
> > 
> >   https://review.opendev.org/675788
> 
> not to takethis out of context but it is rather long thread so i have sniped
> the bit i wanted to comment on.
> 
> i thnik not nameing release would be problemeatic on two fronts.
> one without a common comunity name i think codename or other conventint names
> are going to crop up as many have been refering to the U release as the unicorn
> release just to avoid the  confusion between "U" and "you" when speak about the release
> untill we have an offical name. if we had no offical names i think we woudl keep using
> those placeholders at least on irc or in person. (granted we would not use them for code
> or docs)
> 
> that is a minor thing but the more distributive issue i see is that nova's U release
> will be 21.0.0? and neutorns U release will be 16.0.0? without a name to refer to the
> set of compatiable project for a given version we woudl only have the letter and form a marketing
> perspective and even from development perspective i think that will be problematic.
> 
> we could just have the V release but i think it loses something in clarity.

+1. As Sean points out, and as has been pointed out elsewhere in the
thread, we already have waaay too many version-related numbers floating
around. If we were to opt for numbers instead of a U-based name for
this release, that would mean for _nova alone_, I'd personaly have to
distinguish between OpenStack 22, nova 21.0 (I think) and OSP 17.0
(again, I think), and that's before I think about other projects and
packages. Nooope.

I haven't heard anyone objecting to the use of release names but rather
the process used to choose those names. Change that process, by either
loosening the constraints used in choosing it or by moving it from a
community-driven decision to something the Foundation/TC just decides
on, but please don't drop the alphabetic names entirely.

Stephen