On 8 July 2014 01:25, Zane Bitter zbit...@redhat.com wrote:
With the Icehouse release we announced that there would be no further
backwards-incompatible changes to HOT without a revision bump. However, I
notice that we've already made an upward-incompatible change in Juno:
On 07/07/14 20:02, Steve Baker wrote:
On 08/07/14 09:25, Zane Bitter wrote:
With the Icehouse release we announced that there would be no further
backwards-incompatible changes to HOT without a revision bump.
However, I notice that we've already made an upward-incompatible
change in Juno:
With the Icehouse release we announced that there would be no further
backwards-incompatible changes to HOT without a revision bump. However,
I notice that we've already made an upward-incompatible change in Juno:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102718/
So a user will be able to create a
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2014-07-07 14:25:50 -0700:
With the Icehouse release we announced that there would be no further
backwards-incompatible changes to HOT without a revision bump. However,
I notice that we've already made an upward-incompatible change in Juno:
On 07/07/14 18:13, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2014-07-07 14:25:50 -0700:
I'd like to propose a policy that we bump the revision of HOT whenever
we make a change from the previous stable version, and that we declare
the new version stable at the end of each
On 08/07/14 09:25, Zane Bitter wrote:
With the Icehouse release we announced that there would be no further
backwards-incompatible changes to HOT without a revision bump.
However, I notice that we've already made an upward-incompatible
change in Juno:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102718/
On 08/07/14 10:13, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2014-07-07 14:25:50 -0700:
With the Icehouse release we announced that there would be no further
backwards-incompatible changes to HOT without a revision bump. However,
I notice that we've already made an
