FYI, we roughly do semantic versioning right-shifted by one -- for a release 0.X.Y, incrementing X is supposed to be backwards-incompatible, while incrementing Y is supposed to be backwards-compatible [1].
Thus, you can safely say anything less than 0.7 should work fine for Nova. Best Regards, Solly [1] https://github.com/kanaka/websockify/issues/122 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Dague" <s...@dague.net> > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 3:22:54 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] [nova] requirements freeze > exception for websockify > > On 09/22/2014 02:58 PM, Solly Ross wrote: > > The reason it was bounded was because we (the websockify upstream > > mantainers) made a backwards-incompatible change (for good reasons -- it > > brought websockify more inline with the Python standard library > > interfaces). > > However, OpenStack had subclassed the WebSocketProxy code, and so the > > change would have broken OpenStack. > > > > I did a commit a while ago that made it possible to use Nova with both the > > newest version and the older versions, but we never bumped the max version > > for OpenStack, even though we could. > > Actually, the max version is bumped. We're testing with 0.6.0 in the > gate because of it. > > -Sean > > > > > Best Regards, > > Solly > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Doug Hellmann" <d...@doughellmann.com> > >> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > >> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:54:08 PM > >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] [nova] requirements freeze > >> exception for websockify > >> > >> On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:22 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > >> > >>> I'd like to request a requirements freeze exception for websockify - > >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/122702/ > >>> > >>> The rationale for this is that websockify version bump fixes a Nova bug > >>> about zombie processes - https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1048703. > >>> It also sets g-r to the value we've been testing against for the entire > >>> last cycle. > >>> > >>> I don't believe it has any impacts on other projects, so should be a > >>> very safe change. > >> > >> Gantt, Ironic, and Nova all use websockify. > >> > >> I’m +1 on updating the minimum based on the fact that our current version > >> spec is causing us to test with this version anyway. > >> > >> However, the proposed change also removes the upper bound. Do we know why > >> that was bounded before? Have we had issues with API changes in that > >> project? Is it safe to remove the cap? > >> > >> Doug > >> > >>> > >>> -Sean > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Sean Dague > >>> http://dague.net > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > -- > Sean Dague > http://dague.net > > _______________________________________________ > 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
