Open Stack

2011/11/30 Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>:
> Soren Hansen wrote:
>> I propose we start building packages from the stable branches and put
>> them in an appropriately named/labeled PPA, such as nova-core/diablo-qa
>> or nova-core/diablo-not-for-production (or perhaps under
>> openstack-stable-maint).
>> [...]
> That would work (and inside the current project). Just two remarks:
>
> * Expectations are difficult to control. Even if we use an intimidating
> name, some people will still expect this to provide more than it
> actually does. For example, people kept thinking that the "2011.3"
> release PPA would be updated, while it explicitly said it wouldn't.

The reason I want the PPA name to be scary looking is exactly because
of the lesson learned from those PPA's. It's easy to miss the
disclaimers on Launchpad (and if you happen to find the PPA info
somewhere else, there might be no disclaimer at all!). The PPA name is
the most obvious place to put this. Only if you're running someone
else's script to enable it will you never see it. Some people will
still miss it, but I think it's the best we can do.

> * I don't think that's what Vish and Monty are after -- they
> specifically mentioned the lack of a production-ready distribution
> channel as the problem that we needed to solve

Right. I agree we shouldn't do that. Someone else should. But I don't
want that to hold back the creation of the per-commit PPA for
diablo/stable which I find important for QA purposes.

-- 
Soren Hansen        | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer    | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/