On 10/02/16 18:05, James Slagle wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Steven Hardy <sha...@redhat.com <mailto:sha...@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi all, We discussed this in our meeting[1] this week, and agreed a ML discussion to gain consensus and give folks visibility of the outcome would be a good idea. In summary, we adopted a more permissive "release branch" policy[2] for our stable/liberty branches, where feature backports would be allowed, provided they worked with liberty and didn't break backwards compatibility. The original idea was really to provide a mechanism to "catch up" where features are added e.g to liberty OpenStack components late in the cycle and TripleO requires changes to integrate with them. However, the reality has been that the permissive backport policy has been somewhat abused (IMHO) with a large number of major features being proposed for backport, and in a few cases this has broken downstream (RDO) consumers of TripleO. Thus, I would propose that from Mitaka, we revise our backport policy to simply align with the standard stable branch model observed by all projects[3]. Hopefully this will allow us to retain the benefits of the stable branch process, but provide better stability for downstream consumers of these branches, and minimise confusion regarding what is a permissable backport. If we do this, only backports that can reasonably be considered "Appropriate fixes"[4] will be valid backports - in the majority of cases this will mean bugfixes only, and large features where the risk of regression is significant will not be allowed. What are peoples thoughts on this? I'm in agreement. I think this change is needed and will help set better expectations around what will be included in which release. If we adopt this as the new policy, then the immediate followup is to set and communicate when we'll be cutting the stable branches, so that it's understood when the features have to be done/committed. I'd suggest that we more or less completely adopt the integrated release schedule[1]. Which I believe means the week of RC1 for cutting the stable/mitaka branches, which is March 14th-18th. It seems to follow logically then that we'd then want to also be more aggresively aligned with other integrated release events such as the feature freeze date, Feb 29th - March 4th. An alternative to strictly following the schedule, would be to say that TripleO lags the integrated release dates by some number of weeks (1 or 2 I'd think), to allow for some "catchup" time since TripleO is often consuming features from projects part of the integrated release.
This is where my vote would lie, given that we are consumers of the other projects we may need a little time to support a feature that is merged late in the cycle. Of course we can also have patches lined up ready to merge so the lag shouldn't need to be excessive.
If we don't lag we could achieve the same thing by allowing a short window in the stable branch where features may be allowed based on group opinion.
[1] http://releases.openstack.org/mitaka/schedule.html Thanks, Steve [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2016/tripleo.2016-02-09-14.01.log.html [2] https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-specs/blob/master/specs/liberty/release-branch.rst [3] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html [4] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#appropriate-fixes __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- -- James Slagle -- __________________________________________________________________________ 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
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
