On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > 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 <mar...@redhat.com> 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
At first I didn't want to bother with alpha releases, because they introduce a special case. I've since come around to the same line of thinking as Mark, especially now that releasing alphas works without having to point to tarballs in requirements files. > >>> 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 > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev