Re: [openstack-dev] [docs][stable][ironic] Stable branch docs
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 05:33:14PM -0800, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > Perfect! Thanks for pointing that out. :) > > As a note, I don't actually see the new note on the page you linked, > though I do see it in the git repo. Strange. Yeah strange. I'll look into that. Yours Tony. pgpfedCQyoB3H.pgp Description: PGP signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [docs][stable][ironic] Stable branch docs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:05:16AM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 06:42:13AM -0800, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > In the big tent, project teams are expected to maintain their own > > install guides within their projects' source tree. There's a > > conversation going on over in the docs list[1] about changing this, but > > in the meantime... > > > > Ironic (and presumably other projects) publish versioned documentation, > > which includes the install guide. For example, our kilo install guide is > > here[2]. However, there's no way to update those, as stable branch > > policy[3] only allows for important bug fixes to be backported. For > > example, this patch[4] was blocked for this reason (among others). > > The stable guide[1] was recently changed[2] to allow just this thing, > essentially at the discretion of the stable teams, both stable-maint-core and > project specific. > > So I'd hazard a guess that if the patch you point out were to follow the > documented procedure (clean backport with matching Change-ID done with > cherry-pick > -x)[3] It'd come down to ironic to decide if it was a good candidate. > > [1] > http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#appropriate-fixes > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/247415/1 > [3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranch#Processes [4] > [4] Yes this should be part of the project-team-guide, /me fixes that. > > Yours Tony. Perfect! Thanks for pointing that out. :) As a note, I don't actually see the new note on the page you linked, though I do see it in the git repo. Strange. // jim __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [docs][stable][ironic] Stable branch docs
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 06:42:13AM -0800, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > Hi all, > > In the big tent, project teams are expected to maintain their own > install guides within their projects' source tree. There's a > conversation going on over in the docs list[1] about changing this, but > in the meantime... > > Ironic (and presumably other projects) publish versioned documentation, > which includes the install guide. For example, our kilo install guide is > here[2]. However, there's no way to update those, as stable branch > policy[3] only allows for important bug fixes to be backported. For > example, this patch[4] was blocked for this reason (among others). The stable guide[1] was recently changed[2] to allow just this thing, essentially at the discretion of the stable teams, both stable-maint-core and project specific. So I'd hazard a guess that if the patch you point out were to follow the documented procedure (clean backport with matching Change-ID done with cherry-pick -x)[3] It'd come down to ironic to decide if it was a good candidate. [1] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#appropriate-fixes [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/247415/1 [3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranch#Processes [4] [4] Yes this should be part of the project-team-guide, /me fixes that. Yours Tony. pgpLecJrtu9v1.pgp Description: PGP signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [docs][stable][ironic] Stable branch docs
On 12/14/2015 03:42 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: Hi all, In the big tent, project teams are expected to maintain their own install guides within their projects' source tree. There's a conversation going on over in the docs list[1] about changing this, but in the meantime... Ironic (and presumably other projects) publish versioned documentation, which includes the install guide. For example, our kilo install guide is here[2]. However, there's no way to update those, as stable branch policy[3] only allows for important bug fixes to be backported. For example, this patch[4] was blocked for this reason (among others). So, I'd like to propose that in the new world, where projects maintain their own deployer/operator docs, that we allow documentation backports (or even changes that are not part of a backport, for changes that only make sense on the stable branch and not master). They're extremely low risk, and can be very useful for operators. The alternative is making sure people are always reading the most up-to-date docs, and in places that have changed, having "in kilo [...], in liberty [...]", etc, which is a bit of a maintenance burden. +1 I would prefer us landing important documentation patches on stable branches. What do folks think? I'm happy to write up a patch for the project team guide if there's support for this. // jim [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2015-December/008051.html [2] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/kilo/deploy/install-guide.html [3] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219603/ __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [docs][stable][ironic] Stable branch docs
Hi all, In the big tent, project teams are expected to maintain their own install guides within their projects' source tree. There's a conversation going on over in the docs list[1] about changing this, but in the meantime... Ironic (and presumably other projects) publish versioned documentation, which includes the install guide. For example, our kilo install guide is here[2]. However, there's no way to update those, as stable branch policy[3] only allows for important bug fixes to be backported. For example, this patch[4] was blocked for this reason (among others). So, I'd like to propose that in the new world, where projects maintain their own deployer/operator docs, that we allow documentation backports (or even changes that are not part of a backport, for changes that only make sense on the stable branch and not master). They're extremely low risk, and can be very useful for operators. The alternative is making sure people are always reading the most up-to-date docs, and in places that have changed, having "in kilo [...], in liberty [...]", etc, which is a bit of a maintenance burden. What do folks think? I'm happy to write up a patch for the project team guide if there's support for this. // jim [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2015-December/008051.html [2] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/kilo/deploy/install-guide.html [3] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219603/ __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
