On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:02:32AM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:58:22PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Dave McCowan (dmccowan)'s message of 2017-08-01 20:48:12 
> > +0000:
> > > This note is to request a Feature Freeze Exemption (FFE) for the 
> > > python-barbicanclient library in Pike.
> > > 
> > > Python-barbicanclient 4.5.0 was intended to be the Pike release.  
> > > However, after it was released, testing with the Heat and Octavia 
> > > projects found that it contained an incompatible change resulting in 
> > > Tracebacks for those projects.
> > > 
> > > The issue was reported in this bug.
> > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-barbicanclient/+bug/1706841
> > > 
> > > A first, and partial, attempt to fix this was merged in this patch.
> > > https://review.openstack.org/487721
> > > This patch is included in release 4.5.1.
> > > 
> > > A second, and successful, fix was merged in this patch.
> > > https://review.openstack.org/489518
> > > This patch is included in release 4.5.2.
> > > 
> > > The Barbican team requests a feature freeze exemption for 
> > > python-barbicanclient release 4.5.2 to be the release for Pike.  Releases 
> > > 4.5.0 and 4.5.1 should be blocked in global requirements.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Dave
> > > IRC:dave-mccowan
> > 
> > This sounds reasonable. It's a critical problem but only affects a small
> > number of projects, so the risk is fairly small.
> 
> The current users of python-barbicanclient are:
> Package      : python-barbicanclient [python-barbicanclient!=4.5.0,>=4.0.0] 
> (used by 16 projects)
> Also affects : 16 projects
> openstack/castellan                           []
> openstack/cinder                              [tc:approved-release]
> openstack/compute-hyperv                      []
> openstack/heat                                [tc:approved-release]
> openstack/kolla                               []
> openstack/magnum                              []
> openstack/mistral                             []
> openstack/neutron-lbaas                       []
> openstack/neutron-lbaas-dashboard             []
> openstack/nova                                [tc:approved-release]
> openstack/octavia                             []
> openstack/octavia-dashboard                   []
> openstack/openstackclient                     []
> openstack/python-openstackclient              []
> openstack/solum                               []
> openstack/tacker                              []
> 
> But IIUC it's really only octavia and heat that don't work with 4.5.x
> 
> Looking at the change logs:
> 
> [tony@thor python-barbicanclient]$ git log --decorate --oneline
> --no-merges 4.4.0^..HEAD
> 714fce2 (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD, gerrit/master) Support 
> import modules from barbicanclient.client module
> 49505b9 (tag: 4.5.1) Workaround for importing objects from old path
> ea509a5 Update api references according to refactor result
> e0e3703 Add secret_type filter to CLI
> f844a0e Updated from global requirements
> a95c1a1 Update the documentation link for doc migration
> 51d8bfa Updated from global requirements
> c497189 fix default version
> 3c7d909 Updated from global requirements
> e599dfd Update doc references
> 2479529 import content from cli-reference in openstack-manuals
> 9af9169 rearrange the existing docs into the new standard layout
> 4eed5c8 Switch from oslosphinx to openstackdocstheme
> 439ee25 (tag: 4.4.0) Updated from global requirements
> 97906c8 Refactor barbicanclient
> 
> So all the changes look okay to me, assuming the 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 patches
> work.
> 
> > I assume you've done enough testing to feel comfortable that 4.5.2 will
> > work better than 4.5.0 and 4.5.1?
> 
> Once we have the release I'll create no-op changes in all the affected
> projects that depend on the u-c bump.
> 
> What concerns me a little is that we can't test this without a release
> and once we do the release we're committed to some form of g-r
> alteration with the impacts associated with it.
> 
> Would it be terrible to branch stable/pike @ 4.4.0 and leav all the
> 4.5.x stuff for queens?

@Dave?  Any chance you can answer the questions?  From a requirements
POV I'm very unlikely to grant an FFE into next week.

Yours Tony.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to