On 10/10/2016 11:34 PM, Tony Breeds 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.

I agree, I don't really have a mechanism for do that though.  I didn't state
this but my plan was to reach out the PTLs that have the stable:follows-policy
tag and ask them to release.  I suppose I could go one step further and
propose the change in openstack/releases but that seems a little like over
reach to me.

What do PTLs / stable CPLs think?

+1 to the idea.

I see that many Ironic projects only have global requirements updates since the last release. Should we request a release as well?


BTW: I see you've done this for neutron :)   Thanks!

Yours Tony.



__________________________________________________________________________
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

Reply via email to