Open Stack

I'd also like a quick check in with folks on underlying distro support
policy and about python 2.6 policy:

****

Distro support

We're in a new situation right now. It's the first time we have an
Ubuntu LTS in existence that we express some amount of support for.
Previously, we have always targeted "latest ubuntu". There are three
options I can see:

a) Continue to run tests for our development branches on precise until
precise+1 comes out. Additionally, run tests on "latest ubuntu". This
means during this cycle we'd run tests on precise and quantal.

b) Ignore LTS and continue to target "latest ubuntu" for testing. This
mean during this cycle we'd move all build slaves to quantal.

c) Ignore quantal and target precise, either with or without the ubuntu
cloud archive added.

Additional item to consider:

- Do we or do we not enable the ubuntu cloud archive for any precise
builders that we have (provides backports of dependencies)

*****

2.6/3.x support

What do we do about python 2.6? Currently we have to run oneiric slaves
for 2.6 testing because precise doesn't have it. I think swift cares
about 2.6, but I don't think anyone else does. Swift has also been
asking for lucid testing. Cutting off 2.6 support will be important for
beginning to think about 3.x support.

Straw man proposal:
 - Drop 2.6 testing support across the board for this cycle for the
master branch. Add some lucid slaves and use them for testing of swift.
(nothing other than swift has a chance in hell of working on lucid) Keep
the current oneiric-based 2.6 jobs for 2.6 testing of
stable/{diablo,essex,folsom}
 - Moving forward, make plans for grizzly+1 to get swift off of 2.6 (is
there any chance of that being reasonable notmyname?) so that we can
start looking towards across the board support for 3.x. In the mean
time, add some quantal builders with 3.3 installed and run some
non-voting 3.3 jobs on some of the projects. (it's possible to have 2.7
and 3.3 code that is source-code compatible)

*****

2.6/3.x policy is way less urgent than deciding the distro policy - but
having a thought on 2.6 policy might affect the distro policy thoughts.
(for instance, adding quantal builders without removing oneiric builders
for master branches will result in a net increase of build slaves used
... which may or may not be a problem for our cloud providers (they
haven't complained yet) )

Look forward to chatting tomorrow!

On 10/22/2012 09:20 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> If there is time I would also like to discuss third party APIs. The ppb
> took a strong stance on them last year and I would like to revisit it.
> 
> On Oct 22, 2012 7:44 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thierry at openstack.org
> <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Hello members of the TC,
> 
>     Tomorrow at 20:00 UTC (the old PPB meeting time) we'll hold our first
>     official meeting, with the following agenda:
> 
>     (1) Nomination of Ryan Lane to the User committee
>     (2) Ceilometer application for incubation
>     (3) Date/time for next meeting(s)
> 
>     Note that (1) is just the formal confirmation of Ryan's appointment we
>     informally discussed last week. For (2), please see
>     http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/2012-October/000016.html
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     --
>     Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>     TC Chair
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     OpenStack-TC mailing list
>     OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-TC mailing list
> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>