Graham Hayes wrote: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, at 09:50, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> [...] >> In particular, we created two paths in the graph: >> * upgrade < accessible-upgrade >> * upgrade < rolling-upgrade < zero-downtime < zero-impact >> >> I personally would get rid of zero-impact (not sure there is that much >> additional information it conveys beyond zero-downtime). >> >> If we could make the requirements of accessible-upgrade a part of >> rolling-upgrade, that would also help (single path in the graph, only 3 >> "levels"). Is there any of the current rolling-upgrade things (cinder, >> neutron, nova, swift) that would not qualify for accessible-upgrade as >> well ? > > Well, there is projects (like designate) that qualify for accessible > upgrade, but not rolling upgrade.
Sure, but is there real user value in communicating that capability separately from the rolling-upgrade ability ? And if there is value, is it enough to justify creating a harder-to-decipher upgrade tag landscape ? The fact that you didn't apply for the tag yet points to the limited value of it... -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ 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
