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
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)