Hi Neil,

Neil Jerram :
I've since realised that my initial statement above wasn't quite right.
In fact, because networking-calico uses Neutron interfaces that are
pretty stable (ML2 mech driver, DHCP interface driver, etc.) we have
found it manageable until now to develop a single (master) branch of the
networking-calico code that works with all of the OpenStack releases
(Icehouse..Liberty) that we have tested with; and I'd like if possible
to continue doing that.

This makes a lot of sense.
I believe this can be very relevant for many ML2 mechanism drivers, in particular.

It leads me to believe that branch names in a subproject may not be the right way to indicate what Openstack branch, or branch_es_ now that you put this forward, are targeted.

Back to my humble suggestion in my previous email... Having an "openstack-target.txt" in a project listing the Openstack branch(es) that this project branch targets could possibly help.

On reflection, therefore, I believe it's correct that networking-calico
development has been happening, and continues to happen, on its master
branch, and I hope that we won't ever need stable branches *for the
reason of working with different OpenStack releases* (e.g. if it become
too difficult to target many OpenStack releases from a single branch).

This scenario would be covered by having multiple branches, each with a different content in "openstack-target.txt".

But, well, I don't know if this idea of mine can be relevant.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to