Hello, Since we have little actual logic, and ansible itself is pretty pluggable by its very nature, backporting should be quite easy and would not affect existing deployment much. We will make sure that it will be safe to have stable/liberty code and will keep working at all times. I agree with Sam that we need careful CI for that, and it will be our first priority.
I would very much like to introduce operators to our session regarding this policy, as they will be most affected party and we want to make sure that they will take part in decision. Regards, Michał From: Sam Yaple [mailto:sam...@yaple.net] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 4:15 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Backport policy for Liberty On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>> wrote: Kolla operators and developers, The general consensus of the Core Reviewer team for Kolla is that we should embrace a liberal backport policy for the Liberty release. An example of liberal -> We add a new server service to Ansible, we would backport the feature to liberty. This is in breaking with the typical OpenStack backports policy. It also creates a whole bunch more work and has potential to introduce regressions in the Liberty release. Given these realities I want to put on hold any liberal backporting until after Summit. I will schedule a fishbowl session for a backport policy discussion where we will decide as a community what type of backport policy we want. The delivery required before we introduce any liberal backporting policy then should be a description of that backport policy discussion at Summit distilled into a RST file in our git repository. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please chime in on the thread. Regards -steve __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev I am in favor of a very liberal backport policy. We have the potential to have very little code difference between N, N-1, and N-2 releases while still deploying the different versions of OpenStack. However, I recognize is a big undertaking to backport all things, not to mention the testing involved. I would like to see two things before we truly embrace a liberal policy. The first is better testing. A true gate that does upgrades and potentially multinode (at least from a network perspective). The second thing is a bot or automation of some kind to automatically propose non-conflicting patches to the stable branches if they include the 'backport: xyz' tag in the commit message. Cores would still need to confirm these changes with the normal review process and could easily abandon them, but that would remove alot of overhead of performing the actual backport. Since Kolla simply deploys OpenStack, it is alot closer to a client or a library than it is to Nova or Neutron. And given its mission maybe it should break from the "typical OpenStack backports policy" so we can give a consistent deployment experience across all stable and supported version of OpenStack at any given time. Those are my thoughts on the matter at least. I look forward to some conversations about this in Tokyo. Sam Yaple
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
