On 02/10/2015 12:20 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-02-10 11:50:28 -0500 (-0500), David Kranz wrote:
I would rather give up branchless tempest than the ability for
real distributors/deployers/operators to collaborate on stable

Keep in mind that branchless tempest came about in part due to
downstream use cases as well, not merely as a means to simplify our
testing implementation. Specifically, the interoperability (defcore,
refstack) push was for a testing framework and testset which could
work against multiple deployed environments regardless of what
release(s) they're running and without having to decide among
multiple versions of a tool to do so (especially since they might be
mixing components from multiple OpenStack integrated releases at any
given point in time).
Yes, but that goes out the window in the real world because tempest is not really branchless when we periodically throw out older releases, as we must. And the earlier we toss out things like icehouse, the less branchless it is from the interoperability perspective. Also, tempest is really based on api versions of services, not integrated releases, so I'm not sure where mixing components comes into play.

In any event, this is a tradeoff and since refstack or whomever has to deal with releases that are no longer supported upstream anyway, they could just do whatever the solution is from the get-go. That said, I feel like the current situation is caused by a perfect storm of branchless tempest, unpinned versions, and running multiple releases on the same machine so there could be other ways to untangle things. I just think it is a bad idea to throw the concept of stable branches overboard just because the folks who care about it can't deal with the current complexity. Once we simplify it, some way or another, I am sure more folks will step up or those who have already can get more done.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to