n have an upgrade path provided by the tool would be a
>>> great thing.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kevin
>>> ________
>>> From: Michał Jastrzębski [inc...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:5
i [inc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:50 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [stable] [tripleo] [kolla] [ansible] [puppet]
Proposing changes in stable policy for installers
So my 0.02$
Problem with handling Newto
zębski [inc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:50 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [stable] [tripleo] [kolla] [ansible]
> [puppet] Proposing changes in stable policy for installers
>
> So my 0.02$
>
(not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [stable] [tripleo] [kolla] [ansible] [puppet]
Proposing changes in stable policy for installers
So my 0.02$
Problem with handling Newton goes beyond deployment tools. Yes, it's
popular to use, but if our dependencies (openstack services
On 10/17/17 12:50 AM, Michał Jastrzębski wrote:
> So my 0.02$
>
> Problem with handling Newton goes beyond deployment tools. Yes, it's
> popular to use, but if our dependencies (openstack services
> themselves) are unmaintained, so should we. If we say "we support
> Newton" in deployment tools,
Emilien Macchi wrote:
>
> Thierry, when I read your comment on Gerrit I understand you prefer to
> amend the existing policy and just make a note for installers (which
> is I think the option #2 that I proposed). Can you please confirm
> that?
> So far I see option #1 has large consensus here,
So my 0.02$
Problem with handling Newton goes beyond deployment tools. Yes, it's
popular to use, but if our dependencies (openstack services
themselves) are unmaintained, so should we. If we say "we support
Newton" in deployment tools, we make kind of promise we can't keep. If
for example there
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Thierry Carrez 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
Steve,
I can see how #1 might be a problem in general and should be addressed in
reasonable ways.
For #2, I think your analysis of the tech in use is accurate and if a new
policy is made it be general yet inclusive enough to permit lifecycle
management tools to improve and grow.
Regards
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> 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
Excerpts from Emilien Macchi's message of 2017-10-13 15:02:10 -0700:
> Greeting folks,
>
> I hope we can get attention from stable-maint, release-managers and
> installers projects.
>
>
> ## Background
>
> Some projects tried hard to follow stable policy but it didn't finish
> well:
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
On 16 October 2017 at 12:27, Thierry Carrez 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).
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:
>
Greeting folks,
I hope we can get attention from stable-maint, release-managers and
installers projects.
## Background
Some projects tried hard to follow stable policy but it didn't finish
well: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/507924/
This policy is too strict for projects like installers,
16 matches
Mail list logo