+1 for OpenStack Essex LTS + Ubuntu 12.04 LTS
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Ghe Rivero g...@debian.org wrote:
I'm ok with everything so far, but from
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch:
*The stable branch will only be maintained until the next release is
out. This period may be
On 07 Dec 2011 - 08:15, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 14:12 -0800, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 13:52, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 21:14, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Tim Bell wrote:
I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch.
I'm ok with everything so far, but from
http://wiki.openstack.org/StableBranch:
*The stable branch will only be maintained until the next release is out.
This period may be extended if there are volunteers to maintain it beyond
this point.*
With a 6 months release cycles, it still looks a sort
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 14:12 -0800, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 13:52, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 21:14, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Tim Bell wrote:
I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch.
The people such as EPEL for RedHat systems need
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 10:11 -0800, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote:
So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be:
(0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be
removed now. In the future, we should not provide such
On 06 Dec 2011 - 13:52, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
Yikes! I forgot an incredibly important one:
* What is the migration path story (diablo to essex, essex to f, etc.)?
I think it was going to be the Upgrades Team?
___
Mailing list:
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 23:56 +0100, Loic Dachary wrote:
I think there is an opportunity to leverage the momentum that is
growing in each distribution by creating an openstack team for them to
meet. Maybe Stefano Maffulli has an idea about how to go in this
direction. The IRC channel was a great
On 07 Dec 2011 - 08:22, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 10:11 -0800, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote:
So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be:
(0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be
On 12/07/2011 10:32 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 23:56 +0100, Loic Dachary wrote:
I think there is an opportunity to leverage the momentum that is
growing in each distribution by creating an openstack team for them to
meet. Maybe Stefano Maffulli has an idea about how to
So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be:
(0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be
removed now. In the future, we should not provide such PPAs: 0-day
packages for the release should be available from the last milestone
PPA anyway.
(1) OpenStack, as
Thierry,
I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch. The people
such as EPEL for RedHat systems need to have something with the appropriate bug
fixes back ported.
There are an increasing number of sites looking to deploy in production and
cannot follow the latest
On 06 Dec 2011 - 10:11, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote:
So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be:
(0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be
removed now. In the future, we should not provide such PPAs:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:11:28 -0800
Duncan McGreggor dun...@dreamhost.com wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote:
So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be:
(0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be
removed now. In the future, we
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Duncan McGreggor dun...@dreamhost.com wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote:
So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be:
(0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be
removed now. In the future, we should
Tim Bell wrote:
I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch. The
people such as EPEL for RedHat systems need to have something with the
appropriate bug fixes back ported.
There are an increasing number of sites looking to deploy in production and
cannot follow the
(4) OpenStack will accept and foster a new project, one that is not
focused on development, but rather the distribution and it's general
stability. This distro project will be responsible for advocating on
behalf of various operating systems/distros/sponsoring vendors for bugs
that affect
Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote:
So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be:
(0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should be
removed now. In the future, we should not provide such PPAs: 0-day
packages for the release
We need more than 'just' packaging it is using the testing, documentation
and above all care to produce *and* maintain a stable release that production
sites can rely on for 6-12 months and know that others are relying on it too.
Who is going to make the judgement that a bug fix to the
On 06 Dec 2011 - 13:52, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 21:14, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Tim Bell wrote:
I'm not clear on who will be maintaining the stable/diablo branch.
The people such as EPEL for RedHat systems need to have something
with the appropriate bug fixes back
The purpose of the stable branch and the maint team that theirry mentioned
earlier is to vet patches. Are you suggesting that we need a point release
system for openstack outside of relying on distros to pick release points?
Vish
On Dec 6, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
We need more
Packaging is just a minor step and the last one. But also an important
one. Without propering packaging, installation and updates can be a real
pain. We should give packaging a lot of love, but there is people much
more prepared to do it, and with a little of help, can do a great job.
When one
On 06 Dec 2011 - 23:56, Loic Dachary wrote:
On 12/06/2011 09:24 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Duncan McGreggor wrote:
On 06 Dec 2011 - 14:28, Thierry Carrez wrote:
So the general consensus so far on this discussion seems to be:
(0) The 2011.3 release PPA bears false expectations and should
The stable team with Duncan's additions would fully address my concerns.
Tim
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help :
Hi everyone,
Yesterday, Vish and Monty raised the need for the OpenStack project to
provide a maintained set of packages for stable versions of OpenStack on
yet-unsupported versions of distributions.
TL;DR summary:
The resources needed to do that properly are bigger than you think (and
doing
On Wed, Nov 30 2011, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi Thierry,
TL;DR summary:
The resources needed to do that properly are bigger than you think (and
doing that will alienate some distro packaging resources), so we'll
either do a terrible job at it, or lose focus on the development
release. If
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 10:32 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
TL;DR summary:
The resources needed to do that properly are bigger than you think (and
doing that will alienate some distro packaging resources), so we'll
either do a terrible job at it, or lose focus on the development
release. If
I think there are two distinct use cases here.
To me, the PPA's have always been a QA tool. I wanted people willing to
help test OpenStack to be able to do so with as little effort as
possible. Building packages per-commit gave us that.
It seems incredibly counterintuitive to me that someone
Soren Hansen wrote:
I propose we start building packages from the stable branches and put
them in an appropriately named/labeled PPA, such as nova-core/diablo-qa
or nova-core/diablo-not-for-production (or perhaps under
openstack-stable-maint).
[...]
That would work (and inside the current
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:07 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
I think there are two distinct use cases here.
Totally agree. We need to make it as easy as possible for people to test
upstream git branches and releases.
To me, the PPA's have always been a QA tool. I wanted people willing to
help test
2011/11/30 Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org:
Soren Hansen wrote:
I propose we start building packages from the stable branches and put
them in an appropriately named/labeled PPA, such as nova-core/diablo-qa
or nova-core/diablo-not-for-production (or perhaps under
openstack-stable-maint).
Hi,
TL;DR summary:
The resources needed to do that properly are bigger than you think (and
doing that will alienate some distro packaging resources), so we'll
either do a terrible job at it, or lose focus on the development
release. If there is a need, it should be done as an alternate
2011/11/30 Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com:
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:07 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
I propose we start building packages from the stable branches and put
them in an appropriately named/labeled PPA, such as
nova-core/diablo-qa or nova-core/diablo-not-for-production (or
perhaps
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Soren Hansen so...@linux2go.dk
wrote: To me, the PPA's have always been a QA tool. I wanted people
willing to help test OpenStack to be able to do so with as little
effort as possible. Building packages per-commit gave us that.
+1
I don't have any insights on the
On 11/30/2011 7:59 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
I don't have anything concrete to offer as an alternative, but I'd
love to see something like devstack that runs either from git or
tarballs and supports multiple distributions.
For production, we recommend people use packages. I think there's a lot
On 30 Nov 2011 - 13:57, Loic Dachary wrote:
Hi,
TL;DR summary: The resources needed to do that properly are bigger
than you think (and doing that will alienate some distro packaging
resources), so we'll either do a terrible job at it, or lose focus
on the development release. If there is
On Nov 30, 2011, at 4:18 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Soren Hansen wrote:
I propose we start building packages from the stable branches and put
them in an appropriately named/labeled PPA, such as nova-core/diablo-qa
or nova-core/diablo-not-for-production (or perhaps under
36 matches
Mail list logo
