Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 9 November 2015 at 14:42, Sean Dague wrote: > > So lets figure out where the snags are. I'm pretty uninterested in > threads that just scream LTS without a list of upgrade bugs that have > been filed to describe why rapid upgrade isn't the right long term > solution. I agree

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 05:15:18PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > Hello all, > > I'll start by acknowledging that this is a big and complex issue and I > do not claim to be across all the view points, nor do I claim to be > particularly persuasive ;P > > Having stated that, I'd like to seek

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 11/09/2015 05:30 AM, Hugh Blemings wrote: > Hiya, > > On 7/11/2015 06:42, Sean Dague wrote: >> On 11/06/2015 01:15 AM, Tony Breeds wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I'll start by acknowledging that this is a big and complex issue and I >>> do not claim to be across all the view points, nor do I

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Hiya, On 7/11/2015 06:42, Sean Dague wrote: On 11/06/2015 01:15 AM, Tony Breeds wrote: Hello all, I'll start by acknowledging that this is a big and complex issue and I do not claim to be across all the view points, nor do I claim to be particularly persuasive ;P Having stated that, I'd like

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 02:42:20PM -0500, Sean Dague wrote: > The upstream strategy has been make upgrades unexciting, and then folks > can move forward easily. > > I would really like to unpack what those various reasons are that people > are trapped. Because figuring out why they feel that way

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:20:08AM -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote: > It also extends the life and number of tests that need to be run against > things in Tempest, which already runs several dozen jobs per change proposed > today (since Tempest is branchless). Okay this is something that I hadn't

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

> -Original Message- > From: Tony Breeds [mailto:t...@bakeyournoodle.com] > Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 6:15 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List > Cc: openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org > Subject: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive&

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Tony Breeds wrote: > [...] > 1) Is it even possible to keep Juno alive (is the impact on the project as >a whole acceptable)? It is *technically* possible, imho. The main cost to keep it is that the branches get regularly broken by various other changes, and those breaks are non-trivial to

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 11/6/2015 4:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Tony Breeds wrote: [...] 1) Is it even possible to keep Juno alive (is the impact on the project as a whole acceptable)? It is *technically* possible, imho. The main cost to keep it is that the branches get regularly broken by various other

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 11/6/2015 9:20 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 11/6/2015 4:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Tony Breeds wrote: [...] 1) Is it even possible to keep Juno alive (is the impact on the project as a whole acceptable)? It is *technically* possible, imho. The main cost to keep it is that the

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

On 11/06/2015 01:15 AM, Tony Breeds wrote: > Hello all, > > I'll start by acknowledging that this is a big and complex issue and I > do not claim to be across all the view points, nor do I claim to be > particularly persuasive ;P > > Having stated that, I'd like to seek constructive feedback on

[openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Hello all, I'll start by acknowledging that this is a big and complex issue and I do not claim to be across all the view points, nor do I claim to be particularly persuasive ;P Having stated that, I'd like to seek constructive feedback on the idea of keeping Juno around for a little longer.