On 9/20/2016 7:38 AM, Alan Pevec wrote:
2016-09-20 13:27 GMT+02:00 Kashyap Chamarthy <kcham...@redhat.com>:
  (3) Do nothing, leave the bug unfixed in stable/liberty


That was the unspoken third option, thanks for spelling it out. :-)

Yes, let's abandon both reviews.

Cheers,
Alan

__________________________________________________________________________
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


I'd rather not bump the minimum on oslo.concurrency given the transitive dependencies that would be pulled in which required higher minimums.

So if I had to choose I'd go with the nova backport with the workaround:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/327624/

Which logs an error if you don't have a new enough oslo.concurrency.

But I'm also fine with just considering this a latent bug as danpb pointed out and let downstream packagers/vendors handle it as they see fit.

--

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann


__________________________________________________________________________
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

Reply via email to