Excerpts from Steven Hardy's message of 2015-01-30 10:29:05 +0000: > Hi all, > > I've had a couple of discussions lately causing me to question $subject, > and in particular what our expectations are around tripleo-heat-templates > working with older (e.g non trunk) versions of Heat in the undercloud. > > For example, in [1], we're discussing merging a template-level workaround > for a heat bug which has been fixed for nearly 4 months (I've now proposed > a stable/juno backport..) - this raises the question, do we actually > support tripleo-heat-templates with a stable/juno heat in the undercloud? > > Related to this is discussion such as [2], where ideally I'd like us to > start using some new-shiny features we've been landing in heat to make the > templates cleaner - is this valid, e.g can I start proposing template > changes to tripleo-heat-templates which will definitely require > new-for-kilo heat functionality? > > Thanks, > > Steve > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/151038/ > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/151389/ >
Hey Steve, A while ago (last mid cycle IIRC) we decided that rather than maintain stable branches we would ensure that we could deploy stable openstack releases from trunk. I believe Heat falls under this umbrella, and we need to make sure that we support deploying at least the latest stable heat release. That being said, were lacking in this plan ATM. We *really* should have a stable release CI job. We do have a spec though[1]. Cheers, Greg [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/tripleo-specs/tree/specs/juno/backwards-compat-policy.rst __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
