Doug, Since we have not announced a freeze, we should give folks at least another week. I'd defer to you and lifeless about date for stable branch creation and version capping etc. If we could give a bit more time for the new oslo libraries coming out this cycle, that would be great as well.
Thanks, dims On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Doug Hellmann <[email protected]> wrote: > [Moving this discussion onto the list, so the background isn’t lost.] > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Robert Collins <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: oslo freeze this week? > > Date: August 23, 2015 at 6:42:33 PM EDT > > To: Doug Hellmann <[email protected]> > > Cc: Thierry Carrez <[email protected]>, Davanum Srinivas < > [email protected]> > > > > On 24 August 2015 at 10:21, Doug Hellmann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> On Aug 23, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Robert Collins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> On 24 August 2015 at 09:28, Doug Hellmann <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> I have marked on my version of the release schedule that we will have > the Oslo libraries frozen this week. Are we still planning to do that? We > should figure out what that means as far as creating stable branches and > version caps and all of those things that caused us so much trouble last > cycle. > >>> > >>> We're not capping anything. We're depending on constraints to carry us > >>> forward. The constraints for tox stuff works but isn't widely > >>> deployed: it is partly waiting on a governance change... I think we > >>> should use this as a forcing function for projects to opt-in to that. > >>> grenade uses constraints so only stable branches should be affected by > >>> that. > >> > >> I’m not sure what governance change you mean? > > > > Turns out we should extend the project testing interface as part of > > adding the contraints targets for tox. Nakato is drafting that at the > > moment. > > > >>>> Do we think we have enough of the constraints stuff going to not cut > stable branches, yet, and work using capped requirements? Do we want to try > not capping this cycle? > >>> > >>> stable branches are orthogonal to constraints IMO. If the only reason > >>> for the stable branch is the capped requirements, then I would not > >>> make the branch. > >> > >> We will (most likely) have stable branches for libraries, at some > point, to handle bug fixes. The question is do we want them now or later? > One argument for creating them at some point before we actually need them > is that fewer people can create branches than can approve patches on them, > so if we end up needing a stable release of a library we want to go ahead > and have it. > >> > >> We might be able to go without stable branches for now, and create them > closer to the end of the cycle. I think we’ll end up using the same > versions we have now, more or less, so I’m not sure it buys us that much to > wait. > >> > >> If want to try to avoid library stable branches, we need to add jobs to > test the master versions of libraries against stable versions of > applications to avoid regressions. Those are likely to break quickly > because of other requirements changes (minimums raising), at which point we > have to stop what we’re doing to reconfigure test jobs and create a stable > branch before continuing work on the library’s master branch. So I’m > inclined, for the sake of “ease of reasoning” to just go ahead and create > the stable branches, even if we don’t cap requirements. > > > > Sure, I have no real opinion on that presently: its something I have > > weakly held and not reasoned-in-details opinions. > > > >>> > >>>> We should probably discuss this on the -dev list, but I wanted to > spur some thinking. I’ll start a thread after the release team meeting > tomorrow. > >>> > >>> Cool. > >> > >> So now that I’ve gone and continued the thread, would you object to me > forwarding this message to the mailing list to avoid us having to replay it > there? We can continue the discussion there if there’s more to say. > > > > No objections. > > > > -Rob > > > > -- > > Robert Collins <[email protected]> > > Distinguished Technologist > > HP Converged Cloud > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
