Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 17 June 2015 at 17:19, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: >> On 06/17/2015 05:40 PM, Douglas Mendizábal wrote: >>> I tend to agree with Thomas that plan D is not ideal. For one, it >>> prevents changes to the stable branch that span multiple CRs, since >>> a two patch change would

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > On 06/17/2015 05:40 PM, Douglas Mendizábal wrote: >> I tend to agree with Thomas that plan D is not ideal. For one, it >> prevents changes to the stable branch that span multiple CRs, since >> a two patch change would generate two tags and there would be no >> clear indic

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/17/2015 05:40 PM, Douglas Mendizábal wrote: > I tend to agree with Thomas that plan D is not ideal. For one, it > prevents changes to the stable branch that span multiple CRs, since > a two patch change would generate two tags and there would

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I tend to agree with Thomas that plan D is not ideal. For one, it prevents changes to the stable branch that span multiple CRs, since a two patch change would generate two tags and there would be no clear indication that the first patch should not b

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

> On Jun 16, 2015, at 14:56, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 06/16/2015 12:06 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: It also removes the stupid encouragement to use all components from the same date. With everything tagged at the same date, you kinda send the message that those various things sho

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/16/2015 12:06 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >>> It also removes the stupid encouragement to use all components from the >>> same date. With everything tagged at the same date, you kinda send the >>> message that those various things should be used together. With >>> everything tagged separately,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 06/10/2015 03:46 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> So we could do what you're asking (option B) for Kilo stable releases, >> but I think it's not really a viable option for stable/liberty onward. > > I fail to understand how version numbers are related to doing > synchronized

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/15/2015 11:24 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 06/15/2015 05:19 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: >> On 6/15/15, 09:24, "Thomas Goirand" wrote: >> >>> On 06/08/2015 01:55 PM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: One thing I like about plan D is that it would give al

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

> The only issue is having a correct version number. Swift could well > iterate after "20151", for example doing "20151.1" then "20151.2", etc. Swift never had "coordinated" YEAR.N versions, https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/version_map and they never released a version from their stable/* bra

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 6/15/15, 16:24, "Thomas Goirand" wrote: >On 06/15/2015 05:19 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: >> On 6/15/15, 09:24, "Thomas Goirand" wrote: >> >>> On 06/08/2015 01:55 PM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: One thing I like about plan D is that it would give also indicator how much the stable branch has

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/15/2015 05:19 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > On 6/15/15, 09:24, "Thomas Goirand" wrote: > >> On 06/08/2015 01:55 PM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: >>> One thing I like about plan D >>> is that it would give also indicator how much the stable branch has >>> moved in >>> each individual project. >> >> The o

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 6/15/15, 09:24, "Thomas Goirand" wrote: >On 06/08/2015 01:55 PM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: >> One thing I like about plan D >> is that it would give also indicator how much the stable branch has >>moved in >> each individual project. > >The only indication you will get is how many patches it has. I

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/08/2015 01:55 PM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: > One thing I like about plan D > is that it would give also indicator how much the stable branch has moved in > each individual project. The only indication you will get is how many patches it has. I fail to see how this is valuable information. No inf

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/10/2015 03:46 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > The main issue with B is that it doesn't work well once server component > versions start to diverge, which will be the case starting with Liberty. Review that policy then. > We already couldn't (with Swift using separate versioning), but we worked

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/10/2015 11:27 AM, Dave Walker wrote: > On 10 June 2015 at 09:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 06/05/2015 02:46 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >>> So.. summarizing the various options again: >>> >>> Plan A >>> Just drop stable point releases. >>> (-) No more release notes >>> (-) Lack of reference

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Hi Dave, Ah, I did misunderstand. Thanks for clarifying. Kevin From: Dave Walker [em...@daviey.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:32 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 10 June 2015 at 17:06, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > So... as an op, without release notes, how am I supposed to figure out the > proper upgrade procedure's when you often have to lockstep, in the right > order, nova+neutron upgrades (or other project combinations)? > > Thanks, > Kevin Hi Kevin, I

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

nd [z...@debian.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:53 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases On 06/05/2015 02:46 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > So.. summarizing the various optio

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Dave Walker wrote: > On 10 June 2015 at 09:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: >>> What would be your preferred option ? >> >> I see no point of doing D. I already don't use tarballs, and those who >> do could as well switch to generating them (how hard is it to run >> "python setup.py sdist" or "git archiv

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 10 June 2015 at 09:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 06/05/2015 02:46 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> So.. summarizing the various options again: >> >> Plan A >> Just drop stable point releases. >> (-) No more release notes >> (-) Lack of reference points to compare installations >> >> Plan B >> Push

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/05/2015 02:46 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > So.. summarizing the various options again: > > Plan A > Just drop stable point releases. > (-) No more release notes > (-) Lack of reference points to compare installations > > Plan B > Push date-based tags across supported projects from time to ti

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/09/2015 04:54 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-06-09 10:55:55 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: > [...] >> That's far from being in place. Also, while we are removing point >> releases, and support for Icehouse, we still don't have a common private >> Gerrit for security, which we've be

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 2015-06-09 10:55:55 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: [...] > That's far from being in place. Also, while we are removing point > releases, and support for Icehouse, we still don't have a common private > Gerrit for security, which we've been told about 2 years ago. > > Removing collaboratio

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/08/2015 06:10 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-06-08 16:53:21 +0100 (+0100), Dave Walker wrote: >> This breaks the desire of wanting to have a shared version scheme if >> consumers add their own local patches via git. This works fine for >> consumers that do not use git for handling their

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/01/2015 01:20 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > On 29 May 2015 at 14:41, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> TL;DR: >> - We propose to stop tagging coordinated point releases (like 2015.1.1) >> - We continue maintaining stable branches as a trusted source of stable >> updates for all

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/08/2015 12:25 AM, Alan Pevec wrote: >>> and *Plan D* would be to start doing automatic per-project >>> micro-versions on each commit: e.g. 2015.1.N where N is increased on >>> each commit. >> >> How do you gpg sign these tags? I hope the solution isn't to store a key >> in infra without a pas

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/08/2015 05:42 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-06-07 10:55:29 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: >> How do you gpg sign these tags? I hope the solution isn't to store >> a key in infra without a passphrase. > > How does, e.g., Debian sign its Release file for > jessie-proposed-updates?

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/07/2015 06:13 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: >>> If you consider *every* commit to be a release, then your life becomes >>> easier. >> >> What does this mean? Am I supposed to upload a patched release to Debian >> every day? I suppose I didn't understand you correctly here. > > This discussion is a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/08/2015 12:46 AM, Alan Pevec wrote: >> How do you check if project X in version n works with project Y in >> version m, using this non-scheduled point release "free for all" model? > > That was an illusion of point releases, as Thierry said there wasn't > significantly more testing and I don

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/07/2015 05:57 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > On 6/7/15, 03:41, "Thomas Goirand" wrote: > >> On 05/29/2015 09:23 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: >>> Could you explain this as well? Do you mean fragmentation between what >>> distros are offering? In other words, Ubuntu is packaging Kilo @ SHA1 >>> and >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 9 June 2015 at 03:48, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-06-08 10:54:32 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote: >> On 8 June 2015 at 10:14, Alan Pevec wrote: >> > 2015-06-06 19:08 GMT+02:00 Ian Cordasco : >> >> Not exactly. PBR/OpenStack follow SemVer and 2015.1.0.38 isn't valid >> >> SemVer (http:/

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 2015-06-08 16:53:21 +0100 (+0100), Dave Walker wrote: > This breaks the desire of wanting to have a shared version scheme if > consumers add their own local patches via git. This works fine for > consumers that do not use git for handling their local patches, but > does not support the model of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 8 June 2015 at 16:48, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-06-08 10:54:32 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote: >> On 8 June 2015 at 10:14, Alan Pevec wrote: >> > 2015-06-06 19:08 GMT+02:00 Ian Cordasco : >> >> Not exactly. PBR/OpenStack follow SemVer and 2015.1.0.38 isn't valid >> >> SemVer (http:/

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 2015-06-08 10:54:32 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote: > On 8 June 2015 at 10:14, Alan Pevec wrote: > > 2015-06-06 19:08 GMT+02:00 Ian Cordasco : > >> Not exactly. PBR/OpenStack follow SemVer and 2015.1.0.38 isn't valid > >> SemVer (http://semver.org/) > > > > Right, so semver compatible vers

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 2015-06-08 00:25:47 +0200 (+0200), Alan Pevec wrote: > BTW there's an issue re. verification that > https://tarballs.openstack.org/ is using cert for > security.openstack.org but should be easily fixed by infra. Uh, nope. Try again. You're redirected to security.openstack.org if you accept that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 2015-06-07 10:55:29 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: > How do you gpg sign these tags? I hope the solution isn't to store > a key in infra without a passphrase. How does, e.g., Debian sign its Release file for jessie-proposed-updates? I hope the solution isn't to store the ftp-master automa

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

> -Original Message- > From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org] > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:46 PM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point > releases > > So.. summarizing t

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Robert Collins wrote: On 6 June 2015 at 08:53, Joshua Harlow wrote: Hopefully it's somewhat obvious to folks that altering the PBR version schema (yet again), breaks *all the people* from using it in a reliable manner, and if the goal of PBR is to bring reasonableness, well changing it in a way

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 6 June 2015 at 08:53, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Hopefully it's somewhat obvious to folks that altering the PBR version > schema (yet again), breaks *all the people* from using it in a reliable > manner, and if the goal of PBR is to bring reasonableness, well changing it > in a way that breaks thin

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 8 June 2015 at 10:14, Alan Pevec wrote: > 2015-06-06 19:08 GMT+02:00 Ian Cordasco : >> Not exactly. PBR/OpenStack follow SemVer and 2015.1.0.38 isn't valid >> SemVer (http://semver.org/) > > Right, so semver compatible versioning on stable/kilo would be 2015.1.N > but PBR doesn't support that.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 8 June 2015 at 10:45, Robert Collins wrote: > >> You'll also note that according to PEP 440, (as Jeremy pointed out) .postN >> is meant for non-code changes. If we want to be pedantic about the version >> numbers generated by PBR (at the gate, in tox, etc.), it should be > version number>.devN

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 7 June 2015 at 05:08, Ian Cordasco wrote: > > > On 6/6/15, 02:03, "Alan Pevec" wrote: > >>2015-06-05 15:16 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Stanley : >>> On 2015-06-05 14:56:30 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: >>> [...] I was wondering if we could switch to post-versioning on stable branches, an

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

> How do you check if project X in version n works with project Y in > version m, using this non-scheduled point release "free for all" model? That was an illusion of point releases, as Thierry said there wasn't significantly more testing and I don't remember any testing reports during stable free

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

>> and *Plan D* would be to start doing automatic per-project >> micro-versions on each commit: e.g. 2015.1.N where N is increased on >> each commit. > > How do you gpg sign these tags? I hope the solution isn't to store a key > in infra without a passphrase. Plan D doesn't include git tags, 2015.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

2015-06-06 19:08 GMT+02:00 Ian Cordasco : > Not exactly. PBR/OpenStack follow SemVer and 2015.1.0.38 isn't valid > SemVer (http://semver.org/) Right, so semver compatible versioning on stable/kilo would be 2015.1.N but PBR doesn't support that. > If we want to be pedantic about the version number

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 6/7/15, 03:47, "Thomas Goirand" wrote: >On 05/29/2015 09:36 PM, Dave Walker wrote: >> Responses inline. >> >> On 29 May 2015 6:15 pm, "Haïkel" > > wrote: >>> >>> 2015-05-29 15:41 GMT+02:00 Thierry Carrez > >: >>> > Hi everyone,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 6/7/15, 03:41, "Thomas Goirand" wrote: >On 05/29/2015 09:23 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: >> Could you explain this as well? Do you mean fragmentation between what >> distros are offering? In other words, Ubuntu is packaging Kilo @ SHA1 >>and >> RHEL is at SHA2. I'm not entirely certain that's a bad

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/01/2015 05:32 PM, Alan Pevec wrote: >> *Plan C* would be to just let projects tag stable point releases from >> time to time. That would solve all the original stated problems. And >> that would solve objections 2 and 3, which I think are the most valid ones. > > and *Plan D* would be to sta

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/01/2015 10:40 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > No time synchronization between projects, no freeze dates, nothing, just > SemVer compatible version bumps e.g. once per two weeks or month. > Would it fix your problem? How do you check if project X in version n works with project Y in version m, u

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 05/29/2015 09:36 PM, Dave Walker wrote: > Responses inline. > > On 29 May 2015 6:15 pm, "Haïkel" > wrote: >> >> 2015-05-29 15:41 GMT+02:00 Thierry Carrez >: >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > TL;DR: >> > - We propose to stop tagging coo

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 05/29/2015 09:23 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > Could you explain this as well? Do you mean fragmentation between what > distros are offering? In other words, Ubuntu is packaging Kilo @ SHA1 and > RHEL is at SHA2. I'm not entirely certain that's a bad thing. That seems > to give the packagers more fr

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 05/29/2015 07:14 PM, Haïkel wrote: > 2015-05-29 15:41 GMT+02:00 Thierry Carrez : >> Hi everyone, >> >> TL;DR: >> - We propose to stop tagging coordinated point releases (like 2015.1.1) >> - We continue maintaining stable branches as a trusted source of stable >> updates for all projects though >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 6/6/15, 02:03, "Alan Pevec" wrote: >2015-06-05 15:16 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Stanley : >> On 2015-06-05 14:56:30 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: >> [...] >>> I was wondering if we could switch to post-versioning on stable >>> branches, and basically generate: >>> >>> "2015.1.0.post38" >> [...]

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 2015-06-06 09:03:13 +0200 (+0200), Alan Pevec wrote: > 2015-06-05 15:16 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Stanley : [...] > > I think the recommendation from the PyPI maintainers is to not use > > .postN suffixes since they are intended to indicate non-code > > changes. > > So that's PBR bug then and it should

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

2015-06-05 15:16 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Stanley : > On 2015-06-05 14:56:30 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: > [...] >> I was wondering if we could switch to post-versioning on stable >> branches, and basically generate: >> >> "2015.1.0.post38" > [...] > > I think the recommendation from the PyPI main

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

> Finally, I don't think this is still costly in terms of herding cats, > because we have very few cats actually grazing in the stable branch > pastures. I suggest that stable branch maintainers simply get used to > releasing on a weekly basis if there are new commits, and use that as > an opportun

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Hopefully it's somewhat obvious to folks that altering the PBR version schema (yet again), breaks *all the people* from using it in a reliable manner, and if the goal of PBR is to bring reasonableness, well changing it in a way that breaks things seems like the-anti-pattern of PBR. I know from

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2015-06-05 05:46:07 -0700: > So.. summarizing the various options again: > Thanks for the excellent summary Thierry > Plan C > Let projects randomly tag point releases whenever > (-) Still a bit costly in terms of herding cats > I feel like plan C is th

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 02:46:07PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: So.. summarizing the various options again: Plan A Just drop stable point releases. (-) No more release notes (-) Lack of reference points to compare installations Plan B Push date-based tags across suppo

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/05/2015 09:34 AM, Alan Pevec wrote: >> If the downsteam consumer has their own extra patches ontop of the >> stable branch, then it seems D is even less useful than A. > > It is not - downstream (speaking for RDO) I would keep Version: > 2015.1.N where N is stable patch# so that we have a co

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/05/2015 05:46 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > So.. summarizing the various options again: > > Plan A > Just drop stable point releases. > (-) No more release notes > (-) Lack of reference points to compare installations > > Plan B > Push date-based tags across supported projects from time to ti

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

> If the downsteam consumer has their own extra patches ontop of the > stable branch, then it seems D is even less useful than A. It is not - downstream (speaking for RDO) I would keep Version: 2015.1.N where N is stable patch# so that we have a common reference point with other distros. Our patch

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/05/2015 07:46 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > So.. summarizing the various options again: > > Plan A > Just drop stable point releases. > (-) No more release notes > (-) Lack of reference points to compare installations > > Plan B > Push date-based tags across supported projects from time to ti

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 02:46:07PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Plan A >> Just drop stable point releases. >> (-) No more release notes >> (-) Lack of reference points to compare installations >> >> Plan B >> Push date-based tags across supported projects from time to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 2015-06-05 14:56:30 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > I was wondering if we could switch to post-versioning on stable > branches, and basically generate: > > "2015.1.0.post38" [...] I think the recommendation from the PyPI maintainers is to not use .postN suffixes since they are int

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 02:46:07PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > So.. summarizing the various options again: > > Plan A > Just drop stable point releases. > (-) No more release notes > (-) Lack of reference points to compare installations > > Plan B > Push date-based tags across supported projec

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-06-01 15:57:17 + (+), Jeremy Stanley wrote: > [...] >> The biggest hurdle is that we'd need a separate upload job name >> for those since the current version of Zuul lacks a way to run a >> particular job for different branches in different pipelines (we'd >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

So.. summarizing the various options again: Plan A Just drop stable point releases. (-) No more release notes (-) Lack of reference points to compare installations Plan B Push date-based tags across supported projects from time to time. (-) Encourages to continue using same version across the boa

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 2015-06-01 15:57:17 + (+), Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...] > The biggest hurdle is that we'd need a separate upload job name > for those since the current version of Zuul lacks a way to run a > particular job for different branches in different pipelines (we'd > want to do versioned uploads

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 2015-06-01 12:20:22 +0100 (+0100), Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: [...] > If the stable tarball snapshots had stable, ever increasing names, I > would switch to using those straight away. (Out of which $ git > describe --tags satisfies said requirement) Current PBR releases already create monotonic

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 2015-06-01 17:32:03 +0200 (+0200), Alan Pevec wrote: [...] > and *Plan D* would be to start doing automatic per-project > micro-versions on each commit: e.g. 2015.1.N where N is increased on > each commit. There's just TBD item how to provide source tarballs for > this. [...] That would happen

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 2015-06-01 12:04:34 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: > Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] > > 2. it would be difficult to get proper release notes > > > > If we don't have point releases anymore, we don't have release notes > > anymore. Release notes contain various types of information: the list

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

2015-06-01 17:32 GMT+02:00 Alan Pevec : >> *Plan C* would be to just let projects tag stable point releases from >> time to time. That would solve all the original stated problems. And >> that would solve objections 2 and 3, which I think are the most valid ones. > > and *Plan D* would be to start

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 6/1/15, 06:20, "Dimitri John Ledkov" wrote: >On 29 May 2015 at 14:41, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> TL;DR: >> - We propose to stop tagging coordinated point releases (like 2015.1.1) >> - We continue maintaining stable branches as a trusted source of stable >> updates for all p

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

> *Plan C* would be to just let projects tag stable point releases from > time to time. That would solve all the original stated problems. And > that would solve objections 2 and 3, which I think are the most valid ones. and *Plan D* would be to start doing automatic per-project micro-versions on

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 29 May 2015 at 14:41, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > TL;DR: > - We propose to stop tagging coordinated point releases (like 2015.1.1) > - We continue maintaining stable branches as a trusted source of stable > updates for all projects though > Ideally I would still want to see tarbal

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 01/06/15 12:10, Flavio Percoco wrote: Is this a real problem? What are *tarball timestamps* used for in the packaging world? I'm sure there's a way we can workaround this issue. timestamps just give you a hint, how old the source actually is, not when a packager downloaded the tarball som

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 01/06/15 11:27 +0200, Matthias Runge wrote: On 01/06/15 10:29, Flavio Percoco wrote: AFAIK, these tarballs are generated on the flight in GH. Couldn't we do the same ? s/flight/fly+(facepalm)/ LOL, on the *flight* would be really hard. The issue with on-the-fly generation is: timestamps a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Thierry Carrez wrote: > Thanks everyone for the constructive discussion on this. Lots of good > stuff. Let me summarize the objections so far: > > 1. we'd lose the focus rhythm > > Point releases triggered some attention to stable branches: the > necessity to fix the CI there when it's broken, an

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 01/06/15 10:29, Flavio Percoco wrote: AFAIK, these tarballs are generated on the flight in GH. Couldn't we do the same ? The issue with on-the-fly generation is: timestamps are actually new, and not the same as when the release was tagged. And: you probably want some hashes to verify, your

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 1 Jun 2015 8:07 pm, "Alan Pevec" wrote: > > >> One issue is how would we provide source tarballs, statically hosting > >> tarballs for each and every micro version is not realistic, also those > >> wouldn't be signed. > > > > Sorry, but why isn't it realistic, and why wouldn't they be signed? >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Thierry Carrez wrote: > TL;DR: > - We propose to stop tagging coordinated point releases (like 2015.1.1) > - We continue maintaining stable branches as a trusted source of stable > updates for all projects though Thanks everyone for the constructive discussion on this. Lots of good stuff. Let me s

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/29/2015 11:46 PM, Haïkel wrote: > A release version makes it easy to know what fixes are shipped in a > package. If you rebase on stable branches, then you can just put > the git sha1sum (though, it's not very friendly) in the version, > and le

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 01/06/15 10:07 +0200, Alan Pevec wrote: One issue is how would we provide source tarballs, statically hosting tarballs for each and every micro version is not realistic, also those wouldn't be signed. Sorry, but why isn't it realistic, and why wouldn't they be signed? I thought storage req

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 29/05/15 09:44 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 5/29/2015 8:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, TL;DR: - We propose to stop tagging coordinated point releases (like 2015.1.1) - We continue maintaining stable branches as a trusted source of stable updates for all projects though Long

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

>> One issue is how would we provide source tarballs, statically hosting >> tarballs for each and every micro version is not realistic, also those >> wouldn't be signed. > > Sorry, but why isn't it realistic, and why wouldn't they be signed? I thought storage requirements to generate tarball for e

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/29/2015 06:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-05-29 17:50:01 +0200 (+0200), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: [...] >> if we attempt to fix a security issue that has a backwards >> incompatible fix, then we are forced in introducing a new >> configu

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/01/2015 02:20 AM, Steve Gordon wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Maish Saidel-Keesing" To: >> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> >> On 05/29/15 18:25, Matthew Thode wrote: >>> On 05/29/2015 10:18 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 1 Jun 2015 10:50 am, "Alan Pevec" wrote: > > 2015-05-29 18:30 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Stanley : > > On 2015-05-29 16:30:12 +0100 (+0100), Dave Walker wrote: > >> This is generally my opinion as-well, I always hoped that *every* > >> commit would be considered a release rather than an arbitrary > >> ta

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

> You will get different checksums with tar and/or gzip, you can check the > extracted files and they should be the same. Yes, content is the same, it's just difference in timestamps of folders and generated files (ChangeLog, egg-info etc). > I would like to see signed commits in the 'official' r

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 06/01/15 03:20, Steve Gordon wrote: - Original Message - From: "Maish Saidel-Keesing" To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org On 05/29/15 18:25, Matthew Thode wrote: On 05/29/2015 10:18 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: What about release notes? How can we now communicate some changes that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

- Original Message - > From: "Maish Saidel-Keesing" > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > On 05/29/15 18:25, Matthew Thode wrote: > > On 05/29/2015 10:18 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > >> What about release notes? How can we now communicate some changes that > >> require operator cons

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 05/31/2015 05:50 PM, Alan Pevec wrote: > 2015-05-29 18:30 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Stanley : >> On 2015-05-29 16:30:12 +0100 (+0100), Dave Walker wrote: >>> This is generally my opinion as-well, I always hoped that *every* >>> commit would be considered a release rather than an arbitrary >>> tagged date

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

2015-05-29 18:30 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Stanley : > On 2015-05-29 16:30:12 +0100 (+0100), Dave Walker wrote: >> This is generally my opinion as-well, I always hoped that *every* >> commit would be considered a release rather than an arbitrary >> tagged date. > [...] > > If we switch away from lockstep ma

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 05/29/15 18:25, Matthew Thode wrote: On 05/29/2015 10:18 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: What about release notes? How can we now communicate some changes that require operator consideration or action? Ihar On 05/29/2015 03:41 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, TL;DR: - We propose to stop t

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

2015-05-29 21:36 GMT+02:00 Dave Walker : > Responses inline. > > On 29 May 2015 6:15 pm, "Haïkel" wrote: >> >> 2015-05-29 15:41 GMT+02:00 Thierry Carrez : >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > TL;DR: >> > - We propose to stop tagging coordinated point releases (like 2015.1.1) >> > - We continue maintaining

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

2015-05-29 21:23 GMT+02:00 Ian Cordasco : > > > On 5/29/15, 12:14, "Haïkel" wrote: > >>2015-05-29 15:41 GMT+02:00 Thierry Carrez : >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> TL;DR: >>> - We propose to stop tagging coordinated point releases (like 2015.1.1) >>> - We continue maintaining stable branches as a trusted

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 29 May 2015 7:41 pm, "Matt Riedemann" wrote: > > This, IMO, is about the only time right now that I see doing point releases on stable as worthwhile. In other words, things have been very touchy in stable for at least the last 6 months, so in the rare moments of stability with the gate on sta

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

Responses inline. On 29 May 2015 6:15 pm, "Haïkel" wrote: > > 2015-05-29 15:41 GMT+02:00 Thierry Carrez : > > Hi everyone, > > > > TL;DR: > > - We propose to stop tagging coordinated point releases (like 2015.1.1) > > - We continue maintaining stable branches as a trusted source of stable > > upd

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [stable] No longer doing stable point releases

On 5/29/15, 12:14, "Haïkel" wrote: >2015-05-29 15:41 GMT+02:00 Thierry Carrez : >> Hi everyone, >> >> TL;DR: >> - We propose to stop tagging coordinated point releases (like 2015.1.1) >> - We continue maintaining stable branches as a trusted source of stable >> updates for all projects though >

  1   2   >