Open Stack

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:28 AM Thomas Goirand <thomas at goirand.fr> wrote:

> On 6/10/20 3:23 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2020-06-10 15:11:35 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> On 6/9/20 12:00 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> instead of doing a 14.0.0.0rc1 and then a 14.0.0.0rc2 that gets
> >>> promoted to 14.0.0, we would produce a 14.0.0, then a 14.0.1 and
> >>> just list that 14.0.1 in the release page at coordinated release
> >>> time.
> > [...]
> >> So more or less, you're removing the mandatory release of
> >> frozen-before-release artifact.
> >>
> >> From a downstream distribution package maintainer, I'd like to
> >> voice my concern that with this scheme, it's going to be very
> >> complicated to deliver the OpenStack release on-time when it gets
> >> released. This also means that it will be difficult to get things
> >> like puppet-openstack fixed on-time too, because they depend on
> >> the packages.
> >>
> >> So, while I don't really mind the beta releases anymore (I don't
> >> package them these days), I do strongly believe that the RC
> >> releases are convenient. I don't think we need RC2, RC3, etc, but
> >> having a working RC1 2 or 3 weeks before the release is really a
> >> good thing which I would regret a lot if we decided not to do it
> >> anymore.
> >
> > I don't understand what problem you're trying to convey. The
> > suggestion is basically a cosmetic change, where instead of
> > 14.0.0.0rc1 (and then if necessary 14.0.0.0rc2 and so on) we'd have
> > 14.0.0 (and then if necessary 14.0.1 and so on). How does that
> > change your packaging process? Is the concern that you can't know in
> > advance what the release version number for a given service is going
> > to be?
>
> I don't buy into the "this is only cosmetic": that's not what's going to
> happen, unfortunately. Obviously, in your example, 14.0.0 will *NOT* be
> considered a pre-release of the next stable. 14.0.0 will be seen as the
> "final release" version, ie: the first stable version. This means that
> we wont have tags for the pre-release.
>
> If the issue is just cosmetic as you say, then let's keep rc1 as the
> name for the pre-release version.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>
>
I'm not seeing any issues with this downstream in Ubuntu. It'll be the same
as handling openstack dependency releases today. Semantic versioning will
tell you if it's bug fixes only.

Corey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200610/738e1dd0/attachment.html>