On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:35:24PM +0100, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19 2015, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > In my mind the “independent” release model was originally meant to mean that > > the project was completely on their own, doing potentially incorrect and > > random > > releases. It wasn’t something I anticipated projects *wanting* to use. It > > evolved to mean something closer to the opposite of the “managed” tag, but I > > think we should pull back from that use. We want projects to clearly > > indicate > > which of the other cycle-oriented models they intend to follow, and we want > > something cycle-based for most projects to help distributors and deployers > > understand which versions of things should be used together. > > > > If neither of the existing cycle-based tags meets the needs of a large > > number > > of projects, then we should have a clear description of the model actually > > being followed so we can tag the projects following it. That may mean, in > > this > > case, a cycle-with-intermediary-following or something similar, to mean “we > > have cyclical releases but they come after the cycle of most of the other > > projects”. > > Gnocchi is applying "release early, release often" so there is no really > any big cycle like older OpenStack projects. Major or minor versions are > released from time to time, and more often than 6 months in general. > > It would be good to support that as being *normal*, not "potentially > incorrect and random"! > > > It’s unfortunate that we have so many tools that depend on the “stable/“ > > prefix. I looked, and in addition to devstack-gate the release tools assume > > the > > name stable. It’s not something we can change this cycle, because of the > > other > > priorities, but it would be useful to think about whether we could treat a > > series/ prefix the same way as stable/ in those tools, to have an option for > > the branch name. I have no idea how much work that would be. In the mean > > time, > > I agree that using the tag as the true indicator that the stable policy is > > being followed is a good compromise. > > And by the way, it's a shame that the release:has-stable-branches cannot > be applied for release:independent. We have stable branches in Gnocchi, > we cannot have that tag currently for that only reason. Worse, we often > hit issue about assumption made about how projects are released. See my > recent thread about the devstack-gate based jobs failing for stable > branches. > > It'd be awesome to free those projects and support more flexible release > schedule for project having a different velocity.
This is actually the idea of the cycle-with-intermediary model. Projects following this model may release as early and often as they like, and choose a release near the same time as the coordinated release, to be the "cycle" release and the base for the stable branch. // jim __________________________________________________________________________ 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
