On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Tony Breeds <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 :) >
One idea would be to allow trailing projects additional trailing on the phases as well. Honestly 2 weeks for trailing for just GA is hard enough. Let alone the fact that the actual end-users are 18+ months behind. For some deployment project like tripleo, there are sections that should probably follow stable-policy as it exists today but elements where there's 3rd party integration or upgrade implications (in the case of tripleo, THT/puppet-tripleo) and they need to be more flexible to modify things as necessary. The word 'feature' isn't necessarily the same for these projects than something like nova/neutron/etc. >> 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. > We'll need to re-evaulate what stable-policy means for tripleo. We don't want to allow the world for backporting but we also want to reduce the patches carried downstream for specific use cases. I think in the case of 3rd party integrations we need a better definition of what that means and perhaps creating a new repository like THT-extras that doesn't follow stable-policy while the main one does. Thanks, -Alex > Yours Tony. > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
