My personal feeling is that while it may not break things if we backport to folsom, at this point, we should be focusing our resources on making grizzly solid and thus should only backport things that are truly broken in Folsom. Under that criteria, I don't think this would be something we backport, but I'll leave it to garyk and the masters of stable/folsom to decide if that's the right criteria.
Dan On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Salvatore Orlando <[email protected]>wrote: > Is this change bw compatible? > I think it's ok to backport to folsom only if users will not have to > change their configuration files once they update their packages. > > Salvatore > > On 12 February 2013 18:27, Gary Kotton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Is this something that we want to backport: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/21648/ > > Thanks > > Gary > > > > -- > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > > Post to : [email protected] > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dan Wendlandt Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com twitter: danwendlandt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
