Sean Dague wrote: > If stable branches are important to the project, then stable branches > need to be front and center in the weekly project meeting. Maintaining a > thing is actually knowing the current status and working to make it better.
FWIW, the current "weekly meeting" is no longer a general catch-all project status meeting -- it is now specifically about the release under development, not about stable branches. It is why we don't talk about stable branches there. We could change (again) the scope of that meeting, or have a specific meeting about stable status. For example, if we require "stable liaisons" in every project, those could meet with the stable maint release managers every week to discuss the state of the branches. > Removing tests is a totally fine thing to propose, for instance. > > But the point is, raised well by Alan, the stable branches are basically > only being worked on by one distro, and no other vendors. So honestly, > if that doesn't change, I'd suggest dropping all but the most recent one > (so we can test upgrade testing for current master). I think another issue is that the stable maint team is traditionally staffed with distro packagers, which are less involved upstream (and have less time to dedicate upstream) than your average OpenStack contributor. That doesn't make them the best candidates to know the gate inside out, or to have connections in each and every project to get issues solved. Which is why it tends to fall back on "the usual suspects" :) So I'm not sure getting more distro packagers involved would make that much difference. We need everyone upstream to care more about stable/*. And we need to align our support period with what we can collectively achieve. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev