On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:31:59PM -0700, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Tony Breeds <[email protected]> wrote: > > With that in mind I'd suggest that your review isn't appropriate for > > If we have to give up backports that help customers to get > production-ready environments, I would consider giving up stable > policy tag which probably doesn't fit for projects like installers. In > a real world, users don't deploy master or Pike (even not Ocata) but > are still on Liberty, and most of the time Newton.
I agree the stable policy doesn't map very well to deployment projects and that's something I'd like to address. I admit I'm not certain *how* to address it but it almost certainly starts with a discussion like this ;P I've proposed a forum session to further this discussion, even if that doesn't happen there's always the hall-way track :) > What proposing Giulio probably comes from the real world, the field, > who actually manage OpenStack at scale and on real environments (not > in devstack from master). If we can't have this code in-tree, we'll > probably carry this patch downstream (which is IMHO bad because of > maintenance and lack of CI). In that case, I'll vote to give up > stable:follows-policy so we can do what we need. Rather than give up on the stable:follows policy tag it is possibly worth looking at which portions of tripleo make that assertion. In this specific case, there isn't anything in the bug that indicates it comes from a user report which is all the stable team has to go on when making these types of decisions. Yours Tony.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
