Hi Infra, At the last summit we decided to drop milestone-proposed branches in favor of named release branches. There are two implementation options.
* Use "stable/juno" starting from RC1 The main benefit of this approach is that the infrastructure should "just work" by applying testing to the pre-release branch just as it applies testing to the stable branch. The main drawback of this approach is that pre-release and stable branches generate different expectations (only the post-release stable/foo is actually "stable"), and have different processes, rules and teams responsible for them. * Use "proposed/juno" from RC1 to release and rename the branch "stable/juno" at release time The main benefit of this approach is that we can apply different ACLs, and document different processes and rules based on the name of the branch. The main drawback is that the infrastructure must be taught to use proposed/foo when stable/foo is not around. In various post-summit discussions, consumers of those branches generally expressed preference in keeping them named differently depending on the stage of the release we were in. Infra people generally agreed that supporting proposed/foo was not very complex, or at least not as weird as switching ACLs for stable/foo at release time. So it looks like we should proceed with supporting proposed/foo on prerelease, but I wanted to do a last-minute check to make sure everyone was still OK with that. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
