2014-10-02 14:19 GMT+02:00 Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com:
Hi,
What is actually needed is those who rely on the stable branch(es)
existence need to step forward and dedicate resources to it. Putting
the work on people not interested is just the same as killing them
off, except slower,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/10/14 22:25, Dirk Müller wrote:
2014-10-02 14:19 GMT+02:00 Duncan Thomas
duncan.tho...@gmail.com:
Hi,
What is actually needed is those who rely on the stable
branch(es) existence need to step forward and dedicate resources
to it.
The stable-maint team has been more active in the last couple months of
keeping on top of stable branch specific gate breakage (usually identified
by periodic job failures). We managed to flush a bunch of reviews through
the gate over the last couple weeks [1] Yea, many required rechecks, but
the
The original idea was that these stable branches would be maintained by the
distros, and that is clearly not happening if you look at the code review
Stable branches are maintained by the _upstream_ stable-maint team[1]
where most members might be from (two) distros but please note that
all
I'm on retry #7 of modifying the tox.ini file in devstack.
Which review# is that so I can have a look?
Cheers,
Alan
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
On 2 Oct 2014 08:19, Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com wrote:
The original idea was that these stable branches would be maintained by
the
distros, and that is clearly not happening if you look at the code
review
Stable branches are maintained by the _upstream_ stable-maint team[1]
where most
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
I guess the following review is meant:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125075/
I went thru each of the failure for the patch (no dependency failures
checked), and here are some damned lies (c) about those failures:
- - bug 1323658: 2
On 10/02/2014 04:47 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
Hi,
I guess the following review is meant:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125075/
I went thru each of the failure for the patch (no dependency failures
checked), and here are some damned lies (c) about those failures:
- bug 1323658: 2
Michael Still wrote:
I agree with Sean here.
The original idea was that these stable branches would be maintained by
the distros, and that is clearly not happening if you look at the code
review latency there. We need to sort that out before we even consider
supporting a release for more
On 10/02/2014 07:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Michael Still wrote:
I agree with Sean here.
The original idea was that these stable branches would be maintained by
the distros, and that is clearly not happening if you look at the code
review latency there. We need to sort that out before we
Sean Dague wrote:
If stable branches are important to the project, then stable branches
need to be front and center in the weekly project meeting. Maintaining a
thing is actually knowing the current status and working to make it better.
FWIW, the current weekly meeting is no longer a general
On 2 October 2014 12:57, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
As far as stable is concerned, the fix is relatively simple and has been
proposed a while back: push responsibility of stable branch maintenance
down at project-level. The current stable-maint team would become
stable branch
As stable branches got discussed recently, I'm kind of curious who is
actually stepping up to make icehouse able to pass tests in any real
way. Because right now I've been trying to fix devstack icehouse so that
icehouse requirements can be unblocked (and to land code that will
reduce grenade
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
As stable branches got discussed recently, I'm kind of curious who is
actually stepping up to make icehouse able to pass tests in any real
way. Because right now I've been trying to fix devstack icehouse so that
icehouse
On 10/1/14, 11:53 AM, Morgan Fainberg morgan.fainb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
As stable branches got discussed recently, I'm kind of curious who is
actually stepping up to make icehouse able to pass tests in any real
way. Because right
On 10/01/2014 04:46 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
On 10/1/14, 11:53 AM, Morgan Fainberg morgan.fainb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
As stable branches got discussed recently, I'm kind of curious who is
actually stepping up to make icehouse
I agree with Sean here.
The original idea was that these stable branches would be maintained by the
distros, and that is clearly not happening if you look at the code review
latency there. We need to sort that out before we even consider supporting
a release for more than the one year we
17 matches
Mail list logo
