Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Dean Troyer's message of 2015-04-08 09:42:31 -0500: >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Thierry Carrez <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> The question is, how should we proceed there ? This is new procedure, so >>> I'm a bit unclear on the best way forward and would like to pick our >>> collective brain. Should we just push requirements cap for all OpenStack >>> libs and create stable branches from the last tagged release everywhere >>> ? What about other libraries ? Should we push a cap there too ? Should >>> we just ignore the whole thing for the Kilo release for all non-Oslo stuff >>> ? >> >> Provided that represents the code being used for testing at this point, and >> I believe it does, this seems like a sensible default action. Next cycle >> we can make a bit more noise about when this default action will occur, >> probably pick one of the other existing dates late in the cycle such as RC >> or string freeze or whatever. (Maybe that already happened and I can't >> remember?) > > I had hoped to have the spec approved in time to cut releases around > the time Oslo did (1 week before feature freeze for applications, > to allow us to merge the requirements cap before applications > generate their RC1). At this point, I agree that we should go with > the most recently tagged versions where possible. It sounds like > we have a couple of libs that need releases, and we should evaluate > those on a case-by-case basis, defaulting to not updating the stable > requirements unless absolutely necessary.
OK, here is a plan, let me know if it makes sense. If necessary: Cinder releases python-cinderclient 1.1.2 Designate releases python-designateclient 1.1.2 Horizon releases django_openstack_auth 1.2.0 Ironic releases python-ironicclient 0.5.1 Then we cap in requirements stable/kilo branch (once it's cut, when all RC1s are done): python-barbicanclient >=3.0.1 <3.1.0 python-ceilometerclient >=1.0.13 <1.1.0 python-cinderclient >=1.1.0 <1.2.0 python-designateclient >=1.0.0 <1.2.0 python-heatclient >=0.3.0 <0.5.0 python-glanceclient >=0.15.0 <0.18.0 python-ironicclient >=0.2.1 <0.6.0 python-keystoneclient >=1.1.0 <1.4.0 python-neutronclient >=2.3.11 <2.4.0 python-novaclient >=2.22.0 <2.24.0 python-saharaclient >=0.8.0 <0.9.0 python-swiftclient >=2.2.0 <2.5.0 python-troveclient >=1.0.7 <1.1.0 glance_store >=0.3.0 <0.5.0 keystonemiddleware >=1.5.0 <1.6.0 pycadf >=0.8.0 <0.9.0 django_openstack_auth>=1.1.7,!=1.1.8 <1.3.0 As discussed we'll add openstackclient while we are at it: python-openstackclient>=1.0.0,<1.1.0 That should trickle down to multiple syncs in multiple projects, which we'd merge in a RC2. Next time we'll do it all the same time Oslo did it, to avoid creating unnecessary respins (live and learn). Anything I missed ? Bonus question: will the openstack proposal bot actually propose stable/kilo g-r changes to proposed/kilo branches ? -- 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
