On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:24:34PM -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/9/2015 12:23 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>> >
>> >On Feb 9, 2015 10:04 AM, "Matt Riedemann" <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
>> ><mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > There are at least two blocking bugs:
>> > >
>> > > 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913
>> > >
>> > > Sounds like jogo is working a javelin fix for this. I'm not aware of
>> >a patch to review though.
>> >
>> >We need to stop trying to install tempest in the same env as stable/* code.
>> >
>> >I should be able to revise/respond to comments shortly.
>> >
>> >https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153080/
>> >
>> >https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153702/
>> >
>> >This is also blocking my effort to pin stable dependencies (Dean's
>> >devstack changes are needed before we can pin stable dependencies as well).
>> >
>> > >
>> > > 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1419919
>> > >
>> > > I'm not sure yet what's going on with this one.
>> > >
>>
>> Tracking etherpad:
>>
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/wedged-stable-gate-feb-2015
>
>
> So I think it's time we called the icehouse branch and marked it EOL. We
> originally conditioned the longer support window on extra people stepping
> forward to keep things working. I believe this latest issue is just the latest
> indication that this hasn't happened. Issue 1 listed above is being caused by
> the icehouse branch during upgrades. The fact that a stable release was pushed
> at the same time things were wedged on the juno branch is just the latest
> evidence to me that things aren't being maintained as they should be. Looking 
> at
> the #openstack-qa irc log from today or the etherpad about trying to sort this
> issue should be an indication that no one has stepped up to help with the
> maintenance and it shows given the poor state of the branch.
>
> If I'm not mistaken with our original support window lengths Icehouse would be
> EOL'd around now. So it's time we stopped pretending we'll be maintaining this
> branch for several more months and just go through the normal EOL procedure.
>

Was this serious?  I mean, we just say; 'sorry, yes we said support
until X; but now it's hard so we're going to drop it'.

Tell me I'm missing something here?

> -Matt Treinish
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

__________________________________________________________________________
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

Reply via email to