On 08/06/2016 06:11 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2016-08-06 17:51:02 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote:
[...]
when it's no longer to run dsvm jobs on them (because those jobs
WILL eventually break as infra stops maintaining support for very
old releases) then we simply remove those jobs and rely on vendor
CI + minimal upstream tests (pep8, unit tests).
This suggestion has been resisted in the past as it's not up to our
community's QA standards, and implying there is "support" when we
can no longer test that changes don't cause breakage is effectively
dishonest. In the past we've held that if a branch is no longer
testable, then there's not much reason to collaborate on code
reviewing proposed backports in the first place. If we're reducing
these branches to merely a holding place for "fixes" that "might
work" it doesn't sound particularly beneficial.
Well this was the whole point, and the reason I suggested using a
different branch other than stable/release. Keeping the branches open
for driver bugfix backports is only valuable if we can go 5 releases back.
I agree the level of QA we can do gets less as releases get older, and
nobody expects the Infra team to keep devstack-gate running on such old
releases. However vendors and distros DO support such old releases and
the proposal to create these branches is largely to simplify the
distributions of bugfixes from vendors to customers and distros.
Compare this proposal to the status quo, which is that several vendors
effectively maintain forks of Cinder on github or other public repos
just to have a place to distribute bugfixes on old releases. Distros
either need to know about these repos or do the backports from master
themselves when taking bugfixes into old releases.
-Ben
__________________________________________________________________________
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
