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 construc
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 with this wholeh
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 cla
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
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 tho
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
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 t
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
bra
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 cha
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 fix
> -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&
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. Duri
12 matches
Mail list logo