Emilien, I generally thought the stable policy seemed reasonable enough for lifecycle management tools. I’m not sure what specific problems you had in TripleO although I did read your review. Kolla was just tagged with the stable policy, and TMK, we haven’t run into trouble yet, although the Kolla project is stable and has been following the stable policy for about 18 months. If the requirements are watered down, the tag could potentially be meaningless. We haven’t experienced this specific tag enough to know if it needs some refinement for the specific use case of lifecycle management tools. That said, the follows release policy was created to handle the special case of lifecycle management tool’s upstream sources not being ready for lifecycle management tools to release at one coordinated release time.
Kollians? Any problems thus far with the stable policy? Cheers -steve On 10/16/17, 4:27 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <[email protected]> wrote: Emilien Macchi wrote: > [...] > ## Proposal > > Proposal 1: create a new policy that fits for projects like installers. > I kicked-off something here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/511968/ > (open for feedback). > Content can be read here: > http://docs-draft.openstack.org/68/511968/1/check/gate-project-team-guide-docs-ubuntu-xenial/1a5b40e//doc/build/html/stable-branches.html#support-phases > Tag created here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/511969/ (same, > please review). > > The idea is really to not touch the current stable policy and create a > new one, more "relax" that suits well for projects like installers. > > Proposal 2: change the current policy and be more relax for projects > like installers. > I haven't worked on this proposal while it was something I was > considering doing first, because I realized it could bring confusion > in which projects actually follow the real stable policy and the ones > who have exceptions. > That's why I thought having a dedicated tag would help to separate them. > > Proposal 3: no change anywhere, projects like installer can't claim > stability etiquette (not my best option in my opinion). > > Anyway, feedback is welcome, I'm now listening. If you work on Kolla, > TripleO, OpenStack-Ansible, PuppetOpenStack (or any project who has > this need), please get involved in the review process. My preference goes to proposal 1, however rather than call it "relaxed" I would make it specific to deployment/lifecycle or cycle-trailing projects. Ideally this policy could get adopted by any such project. The discussion started on the review and it's going well, so let's see where it goes :) -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
