On 07/15/2015 12:05 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > The "cost" of keeping stable branches around without CI is more a > branding cost than a technical cost, I think.
Which is why I suggested to rename the branches, if it poses a problem. For example eol/icehouse would have been fine. > An OpenStack upstream > stable branch means a number of things, and lack of CI isn't one of > them. We also have tooling that looks at "stable/*" and applies rules to > it. If we have kept stable/icehouse upstream, it would have been renamed > no-more-tested/icehouse or something to make sure we don't call two > completely different things under the same name. Sure. > It feels like you're (or were) mostly after a private zone to share > icehouse security patches Yes. And I was expecting a private security gerrit for that. Thomas __________________________________________________________________________ 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
