Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers What is the logic for that? It's a massive duplication of effort, and it leads to defacto forks and inconsistencies between clouds - exactly what the OpenStack mission is against. Many/most of the c

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

nal Message- > From: Walter A. Boring IV [mailto:walter.bor...@hpe.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 12:34 PM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable > policy for drivers > > On 08/08/2016 02:28 PM, Ih

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers On 08/08/2016 02:28 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Duncan Thomas wrote: > >> On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish >> wrote: >> Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in >&g

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Duncan Thomas wrote: > [...] > To turn the question around, what is the downside of loosing the tag? The tag does not exist in a vacuum. It describes a behavior that operators want. They want a sane deprecation policy so that the blanket is not pulled from under them without a warning. They want

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 12 August 2016 at 16:09, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > How about: 4. Take 3rd-party drivers to a separate cinder-extra-drivers > repository/deliverable under the Cinder team, one that would /not/ have > follows-stable-policy or follows-standard-deprecation tags ? That > repository would still get

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Duncan Thomas wrote: > [...] > Given this need, what are our options? > > 1. We could do all this outside Openstack infrastructure. There are > significant downsides to doing so from organisational, maintenance, cost > etc points of view. Also means that the place vendors go for these > patches is

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Is there some docs for it somewhere? Or some quick way of telling that we've done it and gotten it right? On 12 Aug 2016 08:17, "Andreas Jaeger" wrote: > On 08/12/2016 04:25 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > > On 11 Aug 2016 3:13 PM, "Ben Swartzlander" > > wrote: > >> >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/12/2016 04:25 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > On 11 Aug 2016 3:13 PM, "Ben Swartzlander" > wrote: >> >> ... >> >> I still don't agree with this stance. Code doesn't just magically stop > working. Code breaks when things change which aren't version controlled > prope

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 11 Aug 2016 3:13 PM, "Ben Swartzlander" wrote: > > ... > > I still don't agree with this stance. Code doesn't just magically stop working. Code breaks when things change which aren't version controlled properly or when you have undeclared dependencies. Well this is why the constraints work was

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/11/2016 04:13 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 08/10/2016 01:57 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:52:55AM -0700, Clay Gerrard wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: A big source of problems IMO is that tempest doesn't have stable branches. W

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/10/2016 01:57 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:52:55AM -0700, Clay Gerrard wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: A big source of problems IMO is that tempest doesn't have stable branches. We use the master branch of tempest to test stable

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/qa-specs/specs/tempest/implemented/ > branchless-tempest.html > > > This was actually a *great* read, thanks for that link! -Clay ___

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > We also test every incoming > tempest change on all the stable branches, and nothing can land unless it > works > on all supported branches. Did not know that, pretty awesome! > -Clay _

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:52:55AM -0700, Clay Gerrard wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Ben Swartzlander > wrote: > > > > > A big source of problems IMO is that tempest doesn't have stable branches. > > We use the master branch of tempest to test stable branches of other > > projects, an

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > But, to keep the gate running > involves a lot of coordination between multiple projects that are tightly > coupled. Things like an entire extra set of job definitions in zuul, a > branch on > global requirements, a devstack branch, extr

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:56:09AM -0700, Clay Gerrard wrote: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Matthew Treinish > wrote: > > > When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci against > > it goes away. > > > But... like... version control? I mean I'm sure it's more complicate

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci against > it goes away. But... like... version control? I mean I'm sure it's more complicated than that or you wouldn't have said this - but I don't understand, sorry. C

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > > A big source of problems IMO is that tempest doesn't have stable branches. > We use the master branch of tempest to test stable branches of other > projects, and tempest regularly adds new features. > How come not this +1000 just fix t

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 12:00:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: > On 08/10/2016 11:33 AM, Luigi Toscano wrote: > > On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 17:00:36 CEST Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > >> Luigi Toscano wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: > On 08/10

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 19:42 Aug 09, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > Mike, you must have left the midcycle by the time this topic came up. On the > issue of out-of-tree drivers, I specifically offered this proposal (a > community managed mechanism for distributing driver bugfix backports) as an > compromise alternative to t

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/10/2016 11:33 AM, Luigi Toscano wrote: On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 17:00:36 CEST Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Luigi Toscano wrote: On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: So I tried to get into helping with the cinder s

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 17:00:36 CEST Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Luigi Toscano wrote: > > On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: > >> On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > >>> So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, > >>> and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 10/08/2016 16:04, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Luigi Toscano wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: >>> On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and while I wasn't very succ

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Luigi Toscano wrote: On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability to convince my employe

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wednesday, 10 August 2016 10:42:41 CEST Ben Swartzlander wrote: > On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > > So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, > > and while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability to > > convince my employer it should b

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/10/2016 04:33 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability to convince my employer it should be a priority), one thing I did notice it that much of the breakage seemed to co

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:33:52AM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: > So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and > while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability to convince > my employer it should be a priority), one thing I did notice it that much > of t

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Duncan Thomas wrote: So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability to convince my employer it should be a priority), one thing I did notice it that much of the breakage seemed to come from outside c

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-08-09 15:56:57 -0700 (-0700), Mike Perez wrote: As others have said and as being a Cinder stable core myself, the status-quo and this proposal itself are terrible practices because there is no testing behind it, thereby it not being up to the community QA stan

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

So I tried to get into helping with the cinder stable tree for a while, and while I wasn't very successful (lack of time and an inability to convince my employer it should be a priority), one thing I did notice it that much of the breakage seemed to come from outside cinder - many of the libraries

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:16:02PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > Sorry, I wasn't a part of the sessions in Austin on the topic of long > terms support of Cinder drivers. There's a lot going on during the summits > these days. For the record the session in Austin, that I think Matt was referencing

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:16:02PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Matthew Treinish > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:28:52PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 P

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:16:02PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Matthew Treinish > wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:28:52PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sean McGinnis > > wrote: > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > Mike,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:28:52PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sean McGinnis > wrote: > > > > > . > > > > > > > > Mike, you must have left the midcycle by the time this topic came > > > > up. On the iss

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:39:55AM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > So I guess what I'm asking: If stable branches exist as a place for > package maintainers to collaborate on a common set of backported > fixes, and are not actually usable to that end, why do we continue > to provide them? I don't

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:21:19PM -0400, Matthew Treinish wrote: > I fully understood the proposal but I still think you're optimizing for the > wrong thing. We have a community process for doing backports and maintaining > released versions of OpenStack code. The fundamental problem here is actu

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:39:55AM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-08-09 15:56:57 -0700 (-0700), Mike Perez wrote: > > As others have said and as being a Cinder stable core myself, the status-quo > > and this proposal itself are terrible practices because there is no testing > > behind it, t

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:28:52PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > . > > > > > > Mike, you must have left the midcycle by the time this topic came > > > up. On the issue of out-of-tree drivers, I specifically offered this > > > proposal (a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 2016-08-09 15:56:57 -0700 (-0700), Mike Perez wrote: > As others have said and as being a Cinder stable core myself, the status-quo > and this proposal itself are terrible practices because there is no testing > behind it, thereby it not being up to the community QA standards set. [...] In fair

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > . > > > > Mike, you must have left the midcycle by the time this topic came > > up. On the issue of out-of-tree drivers, I specifically offered this > > proposal (a community managed mechanism for distributing driver > > bugfix backports) as

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

. > > Mike, you must have left the midcycle by the time this topic came > up. On the issue of out-of-tree drivers, I specifically offered this > proposal (a community managed mechanism for distributing driver > bugfix backports) as an compromise alternative to try to address the > needs of both ca

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/09/2016 06:56 PM, Mike Perez wrote: On 10:31 Aug 06, Sean McGinnis wrote: I'm open and welcome to any feedback on this. Unless there are any major concerns raised, I will at least instruct any Cinder stable cores to start allowing these bugfix patches through past the security only phase.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 03:56:57PM -0700, Mike Perez wrote: > If you want to change that, work with the stable team on the various options > provided. This tangent of people whining on the mailing list and in > #openstack-cinder is not going to accomplish anything. That's what we're doing here >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/09/2016 05:45 PM, Mike Perez wrote: On 19:40 Aug 08, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish wrote: This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we don't do this. When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci against it

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 10:31 Aug 06, Sean McGinnis wrote: > I'm open and welcome to any feedback on this. Unless there are any major > concerns raised, I will at least instruct any Cinder stable cores to > start allowing these bugfix patches through past the security only > phase. As others have said and as being a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 19:40 Aug 08, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > > > > This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we > > don't do > > this. When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci > > against > > it goes away. This me

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/09/2016 02:10 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: The best example of why this is good is Linux. If you tell the Linux people to take their drivers out of the tree I can guarantee you they'll laugh you out of the room. The reasons for their stance are many and I won't recount them here (unless you

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/09/2016 11:52 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Walter A. Boring IV wrote: On 08/08/2016 02:28 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish wrote: Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in OpenStack. We don't turn

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/09/2016 03:01 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Walter A. Boring IV wrote: I think "currently active stable branches" is key there. These branches would no longer be "currently active". They would get an EOL tag when it reaches the end of the support phases. We just wouldn't delete the branch

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 09/08/2016 19:58, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > >> On 08/08/2016 02:28 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: >>> Duncan Thomas wrote: >>> On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish wrote: Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in OpenSt

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Walter A. Boring IV wrote: I think "currently active stable branches" is key there. These branches would no longer be "currently active". They would get an EOL tag when it reaches the end of the support phases. We just wouldn't delete the branch. This argument comes up at least once a cycle a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Walter A. Boring IV wrote: On 08/08/2016 02:28 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish wrote: Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in OpenStack. We don't turn off entire classes of testing we have so we can

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/08/2016 02:28 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish wrote: Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in OpenStack. We don't turn off entire classes of testing we have so we can land patches, that's just a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

I think "currently active stable branches" is key there. These branches would no longer be "currently active". They would get an EOL tag when it reaches the end of the support phases. We just wouldn't delete the branch. This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we don't

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish wrote: Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in OpenStack. We don't turn off entire classes of testing we have so we can land patches, that's just a recipe for disaster. But is it more of a disast

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish wrote: > Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in > OpenStack. > We don't turn off entire classes of testing we have so we can land patches, > that's just a recipe for disaster. > But is it more of a disaster (for the consu

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 07:40:56PM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > > > > This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we > > don't do > > this. When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci > > against

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/08/2016 12:36 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-08-08 13:03:51 +0200 (+0200), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Sean McGinnis wrote: [...] The suggestion was to just change our stable policy in regards to driver bugfix backports. No need to create and maintain more branches. No need to set up gate

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/08/2016 12:40 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish mailto:mtrein...@kortar.org>> wrote: This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we don't do this. When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci ag

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

> Ok, to turn the question around, we (the cinder team) have recognised a > definite and strong need to have somewhere for vendors to share patches on > versions of Cinder older than the stable branch policy allows. > > Given this need, what are our options? > > 1. We could do all this outside Op

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we > don't do > this. When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci > against > it goes away. This means devstack support, job definitions, tempest skip >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 2016-08-08 13:03:51 +0200 (+0200), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Sean McGinnis wrote: [...] > > The suggestion was to just change our stable policy in regards to driver > > bugfix backports. No need to create and maintain more branches. No need > > to set up gate jobs and things like that. > > Unle

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:47:53AM -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > > Unless you manage to get it approved for the global policy, I think > > you will effectively make your stable:follows-policy tag obsolete, > > and then it should be removed from your project. Read the > > requirements: > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

> > Unless you manage to get it approved for the global policy, I think > you will effectively make your stable:follows-policy tag obsolete, > and then it should be removed from your project. Read the > requirements: > > https://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/stable_follows-policy.html#r

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 08:00:06PM -0400, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > On 08/06/2016 06:11 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > >On 2016-08-06 17:51:02 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: > >[...] > >>when it's no longer to run dsvm jobs on them (because those jobs > >>WILL eventually break as infra stops m

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-08-06 17:51:02 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: [...] when it's no longer to run dsvm jobs on them (because those jobs WILL eventually break as infra stops maintaining support for very old releases) then we simply remove those jobs and rely on vendor CI + mi

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

Sean McGinnis wrote: This may mostly be a Cinder concern, but putting it out there to get wider input. For some time now there has been some debate about moving third party drivers in Cinder to be out of tree. I won't go into that too much, other than to point out one of the major drivers for

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/06/2016 06:11 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-08-06 17:51:02 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: [...] when it's no longer to run dsvm jobs on them (because those jobs WILL eventually break as infra stops maintaining support for very old releases) then we simply remove those jobs and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 2016-08-06 17:51:02 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: [...] > when it's no longer to run dsvm jobs on them (because those jobs > WILL eventually break as infra stops maintaining support for very > old releases) then we simply remove those jobs and rely on vendor > CI + minimal upstream test

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On 08/06/2016 11:31 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: This may mostly be a Cinder concern, but putting it out there to get wider input. For some time now there has been some debate about moving third party drivers in Cinder to be out of tree. I won't go into that too much, other than to point out one of

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

+1 from me Sound like the best solution to at least part of the problem that was causing people to want to pull the drivers out of tree On 6 Aug 2016 18:49, "Philipp Marek" wrote: > > I want to propose > > we officially make a change to our stable policy to call out that > > drivers bugfixes (N

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

> I want to propose > we officially make a change to our stable policy to call out that > drivers bugfixes (NOT new driver features) be allowed at any time. Emphatically +1 from me. With the small addendum that "bugfixes" should include compatibility changes for libraries used. Thanks for bring

[openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

This may mostly be a Cinder concern, but putting it out there to get wider input. For some time now there has been some debate about moving third party drivers in Cinder to be out of tree. I won't go into that too much, other than to point out one of the major drivers for this desire that was brou