On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Russell Bryant <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/29/2013 01:39 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > We have a review up (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/58297/) to add > > some features to the notification system in the oslo incubator. THe > > notification system is being moved into oslo.messaging, and so we have > > the question of whether to accept the patch to the incubated version, > > move it to oslo.messaging, or carry it in both. > > > > As I say in the review, from a practical standpoint I think we can't > > really support continued development in both places. Given the number of > > times the topic of "just make everything a library" has come up, I would > > prefer that we focus our energy on completing the transition for a given > > module or library once it the process starts. We also need to avoid > > feature drift, and provide a clear incentive for projects to update to > > the new library. > > > > Based on that, I would like to say that we do not add new features to > > incubated code after it starts moving into a library, and only provide > > "stable-like" bug fix support until integrated projects are moved over > > to the graduated library (although even that is up for discussion). > > After all integrated projects that use the code are using the library > > instead of the incubator, we can delete the module(s) from the incubator. > > > > Before we make this policy official, I want to solicit feedback from the > > rest of the community and the Oslo core team. > > +1 in general. > > You may want to make "after it starts moving into a library" more > specific, though. I think my word choice is probably what threw Sandy off, too. How about "after it has been moved into a library with at least a release candidate published"? > One approach could be to reflect this status in the > MAINTAINERS file. Right now there is a status field for each module in > the incubator: > S: Status, one of the following: > Maintained: Has an active maintainer > Orphan: No current maintainer, feel free to step up! > Obsolete: Replaced by newer code, or a dead end, or out-dated > > It seems that the types of code we're talking about should just be > marked as Obsolete. Obsolete code should only get stable-like bug fixes. > > That would mean marking 'rpc' and 'notifier' as Obsolete (currently > listed as Maintained). I think that is accurate, though. > Good point. Doug > > https://review.openstack.org/59367 > > -- > Russell Bryant > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
