On Wed, 2022-11-09 at 09:59 +0100, Herve Beraud wrote: > Hey Osloers, > > Months ago we moved a couple of oslo deliverables to the independent > release model [1][2], however it led us to issues with backports [3]. > > Backports are not an option for those deliverables. that is only true because we do not create brances for each y stream in the x.y.z naming if we did that then you could delvier bugfix z relases with select backports. moving back to release with intermediary is proably fine but ohter then process restrictions i dont think there is anythign that woudl prevent an independed released compentent form doing backports if they really wanted too. really what you woudl want to do is select a subset of LTS release that you create the branch for and backport too that effectivly is what cycle-with-intermediary will give you. you will have one "lts" release per upstrema cycle as cycle-with-intermediary requires at least one release a cycle but like indepenent allows arbviarty adtional release at any time in the cycle outside the freeze periods. > > During the previous release management team' PTG we discussed this topic > and we decided [4] to move back the oslo deliverables to the > cycle-with-intermediary model. > > You can follow the transition to the CWI model through this patch > https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/864095 > > Do not hesitate to react directly to the patch. > > Thanks for your time. > > [1] > https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-November/018527.html > [2] > https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/commit/5ecb80c82ed3ab0144c8e5860ee62df458dfc2b5 > [3] > https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-September/030612.html > [4] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/oct2022-ptg-rel-mgt >