Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 12:09 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Mark McLoughlin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 12:24 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> Background: >>>>> >>>>> We have two types of oslo libraries. Libraries like oslo.config and >>>>> oslo.messaging were created by extracting incubated code, updating the >>>>> public API, and packaging it. Libraries like cliff and taskflow were >>>>> created as standalone packages from the beginning, and later adopted >>>>> by the oslo team to manage their development and maintenance. >>>>> >>>>> Incubated libraries have been released at the end of a release cycle, >>>>> as with the rest of the integrated packages. Adopted libraries have >>>>> historically been released "as needed" during their development. We >>>>> would like to synchronize these so that all oslo libraries are >>>>> officially released with the rest of the software created by OpenStack >>>>> developers. >> >> Could you outline the benefits of syncing with the integrated release ? > > Sure! > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2012-November/003345.html > > :)
Heh :) I know why *you* prefer it synced. Was just curious to see if Doug thought the same way :P >> Personally I see a few drawbacks to this approach: >> >> We dump the new version on consumers usually around RC time, which is >> generally a bad time to push a new version of a dependency and detect >> potential breakage. Consumers just seem to get the new version at the >> worst possible time. >> >> It also prevents from spreading the work all over the cycle. For example >> it may have been more successful to have the oslo.messaging new release >> by milestone-1 to make sure it's adopted by projects in milestone-2 or >> milestone-3... rather than have it ready by milestone-3 and expect all >> projects to use it by consuming alphas during the cycle. >> >> Now if *all* projects were continuously consuming alpha versions, most >> of those drawbacks would go away. > > Yes, that's the plan. Those issues are acknowledged and we're reasonably > confident the alpha versions plan will address them. I agree that if we release alphas often and most projects consume them instead of jump from stable release to stable release, we have all the benefits without the drawbacks. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
