The Barbican Team also has a plan to release a new version of barbican client for Kilo. The planned version is 3.1.0. [1] and it will include features landed during FFE.
Thanks, -Douglas Mendizabal [1] https://launchpad.net/python-barbicanclient/+milestone/3.1.0 <https://launchpad.net/python-barbicanclient/+milestone/3.1.0> > On Apr 9, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Akihiro Motoki <[email protected]> wrote: > > Neutron team has a plan to release a new version of neutornclient for Kilo. > We waited the new release until all granted FFE patches land, > and now we are almost ready to go. (waiting one patch in the gate) > > The planned new version is 2.4.0. It is because neutronclient uses 2.3.x > version > for a long time (including Kilo) and we would like to have a room for > bug fixing for Juno release. > So we would like to propose the following for Kilo: > > python-neutronclient >=2.4.0 <2.5.0 > > I am in the same page with Kyle. > I hope this plan is acceptable. > > Thanks, > Akihiro > > > 2015-04-10 0:09 GMT+09:00 Thierry Carrez <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> Excerpts from Dean Troyer's message of 2015-04-08 09:42:31 -0500: >>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Thierry Carrez <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The question is, how should we proceed there ? This is new procedure, so >>>>> I'm a bit unclear on the best way forward and would like to pick our >>>>> collective brain. Should we just push requirements cap for all OpenStack >>>>> libs and create stable branches from the last tagged release everywhere >>>>> ? What about other libraries ? Should we push a cap there too ? Should >>>>> we just ignore the whole thing for the Kilo release for all non-Oslo stuff >>>>> ? >>>> >>>> Provided that represents the code being used for testing at this point, and >>>> I believe it does, this seems like a sensible default action. Next cycle >>>> we can make a bit more noise about when this default action will occur, >>>> probably pick one of the other existing dates late in the cycle such as RC >>>> or string freeze or whatever. (Maybe that already happened and I can't >>>> remember?) >>> >>> I had hoped to have the spec approved in time to cut releases around >>> the time Oslo did (1 week before feature freeze for applications, >>> to allow us to merge the requirements cap before applications >>> generate their RC1). At this point, I agree that we should go with >>> the most recently tagged versions where possible. It sounds like >>> we have a couple of libs that need releases, and we should evaluate >>> those on a case-by-case basis, defaulting to not updating the stable >>> requirements unless absolutely necessary. >> >> OK, here is a plan, let me know if it makes sense. >> >> If necessary: >> Cinder releases python-cinderclient 1.1.2 >> Designate releases python-designateclient 1.1.2 >> Horizon releases django_openstack_auth 1.2.0 >> Ironic releases python-ironicclient 0.5.1 >> >> Then we cap in requirements stable/kilo branch (once it's cut, when all >> RC1s are done): >> >> python-barbicanclient >=3.0.1 <3.1.0 >> python-ceilometerclient >=1.0.13 <1.1.0 >> python-cinderclient >=1.1.0 <1.2.0 >> python-designateclient >=1.0.0 <1.2.0 >> python-heatclient >=0.3.0 <0.5.0 >> python-glanceclient >=0.15.0 <0.18.0 >> python-ironicclient >=0.2.1 <0.6.0 >> python-keystoneclient >=1.1.0 <1.4.0 >> python-neutronclient >=2.3.11 <2.4.0 >> python-novaclient >=2.22.0 <2.24.0 >> python-saharaclient >=0.8.0 <0.9.0 >> python-swiftclient >=2.2.0 <2.5.0 >> python-troveclient >=1.0.7 <1.1.0 >> glance_store >=0.3.0 <0.5.0 >> keystonemiddleware >=1.5.0 <1.6.0 >> pycadf >=0.8.0 <0.9.0 >> django_openstack_auth>=1.1.7,!=1.1.8 <1.3.0 >> >> As discussed we'll add openstackclient while we are at it: >> >> python-openstackclient>=1.0.0,<1.1.0 >> >> That should trickle down to multiple syncs in multiple projects, which >> we'd merge in a RC2. Next time we'll do it all the same time Oslo did >> it, to avoid creating unnecessary respins (live and learn). >> >> Anything I missed ? >> >> Bonus question: will the openstack proposal bot actually propose >> stable/kilo g-r changes to proposed/kilo branches ? >> >> -- >> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> > > > > -- > Akihiro Motoki <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
