On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Tony Breeds <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 08:42:48AM +0200, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > > I think it would also make sense to *release* on the boundary of the > switch; > > so that it’s clear which phase a release followed. > > What do PTLs / stable CPLs think? > I would be for this, or at least encourage it. I've tried to do this with keystone as well. When one release wraps up, I go through potential candidates to backport and release a new version. I did this with mitaka when we tagged newton rc1 ( https://github.com/openstack/releases/commit/1b0f12e1691fca956ae8d69cbc41737958a0a27f), and I did this with liberty when we tagged mitaka rc1.
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
