I'd vote for stable -2. I think a number of people do an upgrade maybe once a year. I believe CERN just upgraded to juno recently.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Richard Raseley <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt Fischer wrote: > >> +1 from me for deprecation. >> >> I'd also like to know or have an official policy for future >> deprecations, such as when will we deprecate Icehouse? >> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Emilien Macchi <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Some of our modules have stable/grizzly and stable/havana branches. >> Some >> of them have the CI broken due to rspec issues that would require some >> investigation and time if we wanted to fix it. >> >> We would like to know who plan to backport some patches in these >> branches? >> >> If nobody plans to do that, we will let the branches as they are now >> but >> won't officially support them. >> >> By support I mean maintaining the CI jobs green (rspec, syntax, etc), >> fixing bugs and adding new features. >> >> Any feedback is welcome! >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Emilien Macchi >> >> > I echo your +1. > > Perhaps most current stable supported, -1 stable version? > > In that example, once the Liberty release of modules (or a particular > module) is cut we would support Liberty and Kilo. When the same happens for > M, we would deprecate Kilo and support M and Liberty. > > Stable -2 also seems sane - I don't have a good sense of how far people > are generally behind. > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
