On 09/15/2016 09:39 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > As I pointed out in the review, I don't think we'd need to re-release > those things, however, I think this would cause a problem for > stable/newton because the requirements repo doesn't have a stable/newton > branch yet, so this min version bump would go into that, and since those > libs/clients have cut stable/newton already, on their next reqs sync > they'd get that min version bump, which we generally want to avoid on > stable branches as some distros have frozen their packages - although to > be fair they should have been shipping packages from the > upper-constraints versions for newton, not the minimums since we only > test the upper bound. >
I don't think this will hurt us like has happened in the past, I just wanted to put the breaks on this so we can get all the interested parties (releases and requirements teams) involved. This would be breaking our process at the last minute which has caused badness in the past. We (requirements) are working on divergent requirements which would allow for this, but that was for the ocata cycle. Distros I've checked so far won't have a problem with this anyway as they are using newer netaddr anyway (0.7.18 for both debian and gentoo at least). In short, if the releases and requirements teams are both fine with this, ok :D (and tonyb is on both...) -- -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
