Open Stack

On 4/19/16, 2:09 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:

>Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>>> I don't mind that much for stable/liberty, since it predates the
>>> "officialness" of Kolla: I'm fine with any solution there. I'm more
>>> concerned about stable/mitaka and going forward. Stable branches are
>>> supposed to be known quantities, slow moving and safe changes. What
>>> you're proposing wouldn't be an option for stable/mitaka -- so I'd like
>>> to make sure we don't find ourselves in a similar situation in the
>>>future.
>>
>> Going forward this will not happen again.  I agree a stable branch
>>should
>> be a slow rate of change repository but also a safe place to rely on.
>>At
>> present stable/liberty is completely unsafe, so much so that I
>>personally
>> wrote a document in our docs.oo pages that says "DON'T UE IT".  We are
>> only backporting high/critical bugs which are legitimate bugs and not
>> features to our stable branches.  Note we will be backporting any gate
>> changes, (which could be considered "features", but this is to simplify
>> our lives so we don't have different gates for different versions of
>> OpenStack.
>>
>> The main reason this won't happen again is we have decoupled the ansible
>> 1.9 pin on docker 1.8.2.  Now we can use any version of Docker we need,
>> which is 1.10 and greater.
>>
>> Hope the context is useful.
>
>OK, as I said, liberty is pre-official so I'm fine with any solution
>here. We seem to be in agreement that the proposed solution should not
>be applied on stable/mitaka and later.

Seem to be/are 100% in agreement.

Regards
-steve

>
>-- 
>Thierry Carrez (ttx)