On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > as per [1] I imply that all projects under stable-maint-core team > supervision must abide the stable policy [2] which limits the types of > backports for N-2 branches (now it’s stable/kilo) to "Only critical bugfixes > and security patches”. With that, I remind all stable core members about the > rule. > > Since we are limited to ‘critical bugfixes’ only, and since there is no > clear definition of what ‘critical’ means, I guess we should define it for > ourselves. > > In Neutron world, we usually use Critical importance for those bugs that > break gate. High is used for those bugs that have high impact production > wise. With that in mind, I suggest we define ‘critical’ bugfixes as Critical > + High in LP. Comments on that?
I was wondering about this today too. Ihar is correct about how we use Critical importance in launchpad for Neutron bugs. The number of Critical neutron bugs is very small and most of them are not relevant to stable releases because they are targeted at gate breakage incurred by new development in master. I'll +1 that we should extend this to Critical + High in launchpad. Otherwise, we would severely limit our ability to backport important bug fixes to a stable release that is only 6 months old and many deployers are only beginning to turn their attention to it. > (My understanding is that we can also advocate for the change in the global > policy if we think the ‘critical only’ rule should be relaxed, but till then > it makes sense to stick to what policy says.) +1 Carl __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
