Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 2016-05-06 10:25:41 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Tony Breeds's message of 2016-05-06 09:53:11 +1000: [...] > > I think some of these pro-active things will be key. A quick > > check shows we have nearly 30 items in g-r that don't seem to be > > used by anything. So

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 6 May 2016 at 15:25, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Someone had a tool that looked at second-order dependencies, I think. I > can't find the reference in my notes, but maybe someone else has it > handy? > I don't have a specific tool handy, but I'm guessing that we could

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Tony Breeds's message of 2016-05-06 09:53:11 +1000: > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 02:35:46PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > This has been a lively thread, and the summit session was similarly > > animated. I'm glad to see so much interest in managing our dependencies! > > > > As we

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 02:35:46PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > This has been a lively thread, and the summit session was similarly > animated. I'm glad to see so much interest in managing our dependencies! > > As we discussed at the summit, my primary objective with dependency > management

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 04:18:08PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > prometheanfire, > > I'll get the ball rolling next week. i.e, schedule a meeting, get > started on writing down what we do usually for vetting requirements > changes etc. Please try to set this for a time that isn't terrible for

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

gt; Date: May 5, 2016 at 15:25:08 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] > input needed on summit discussion about global requirements > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Davanum Srinivas (dims)'s message of 2016-05-05 16:18:08 -0400: > prometheanfire, > > I'll get the ball rolling next week. i.e, schedule a meeting, get > started on writing down what we do usually for vetting requirements > changes etc. Thanks, Dims! Doug > > Thanks, > Dims > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

t;openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements > Well, I'm more in favor having it as a sub-team of release mgmt team. I have to agree. Doug, did you have specific i

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Well, I'm more in favor having it as a sub-team of release mgmt team. H, __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 05/05/2016 03:18 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > prometheanfire, > > I'll get the ball rolling next week. i.e, schedule a meeting, get > started on writing down what we do usually for vetting requirements > changes etc. > > Thanks, > Dims Thanks, it's nice to have just from a planning

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

prometheanfire, I'll get the ball rolling next week. i.e, schedule a meeting, get started on writing down what we do usually for vetting requirements changes etc. Thanks, Dims On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 05/05/2016 01:35 PM, Doug

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2016-04-17 11:13:15 -0400: > I am organizing a summit session for the cross-project track to > (re)consider how we manage our list of global dependencies [1]. > Some of the changes I propose would have a big impact, and so I > want to ensure everyone doing

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 2016-04-21 14:05:17 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote: > On 20 April 2016 at 03:00, Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...] > > When we were firming up the constraints idea in Vancouver, if my > > memory is correct (which it quite often is not these days), part of > > the long tail

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016, at 08:44 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:09:24PM +1200, Robert Collins wrote: > > > I also argued at the time that we should aim for entirely automated > > check-and-update. This has stalled on not figuring out how to run e.g. > > Neutron unit tests

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:09:24PM +1200, Robert Collins wrote: > I also argued at the time that we should aim for entirely automated > check-and-update. This has stalled on not figuring out how to run e.g. > Neutron unit tests against requirements changes - our coverage is just > too low at the

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 18 April 2016 at 03:13, Doug Hellmann wrote: > I am organizing a summit session for the cross-project track to > (re)consider how we manage our list of global dependencies [1]. > Some of the changes I propose would have a big impact, and so I > want to ensure everyone

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 20 April 2016 at 05:44, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2016-04-18 10:29:20 -0700: >> What I meant is if you have liberty Nova and liberty Cinder, and you >> want to upgrade Nova to Mitaka, you also upgrade Oslo to Mitaka and >> Cinder which

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 20 April 2016 at 04:47, Clark Boylan wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, at 08:14 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-04-19 15:00:24 +: >> > On 2016-04-19 09:10:11 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: >> > [...] >> > > We have the

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 20 April 2016 at 03:00, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-04-19 09:10:11 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: > [...] >> We have the global list and the upper constraints list, and both >> are intended to be used to signal to packaging folks what we think >> ought to be used.

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

tl;dr: You're right, but the point I was making was that all distros are understaff. Longer version: On 04/19/2016 06:24 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: >> You can also add "Ubuntu" in the list here, as absolutely all OpenStack >> dependencies are maintained mostly by me, within Debian, and then later >

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 2016-04-19 11:30:38 -0500 (-0500), Ian Cordasco wrote: [...] > I've argued with different downstream distributors about their own > judgment of what portions of the patch to apply in order to fix an > issue with an assigned CVE. It took much longer than should have > been necessary in at least

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

; > Date: April 18, 2016 at 17:21:36 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] > input needed on summit discussion about global requir

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Fox, Kevin M wrote: Thomas, I normally side with the distro's take on making sure there is no duplication, but I think Thierry's point comes from two differences coming up that the traditional distro's don't tend to account for. (and to be fair, I normally side with the distro's take too...

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/19/2016 03:10 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> On your etherpad, you wrote: >> >> "During the lead-up to preparing the final releases, one of the tracking >> tasks we have is to ensure all projects have synced their global >> requirements updates. This is another area where we could reduce the >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements On 04/19/2016 11:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Remember that in distros, there's only a single version of a library at >> any given time, at the exception of transitions (yes, in Red Hat it's &g

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Ah! Now we're getting right on the spot, where it hurts, and we're finding the root cause. That's a very good thing. Let's dig ! :) On 04/19/2016 05:26 PM, Chris Dent wrote: > I, in project A, don't want to limit my requirements because project B > has not yet upgraded itself to be able to use

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/19/2016 11:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Remember that in distros, there's only a single version of a library at >> any given time, at the exception of transitions (yes, in Red Hat it's >> technically possible to install multiple versions, but the policy >> strongly advocates against

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 2016-04-19 16:10:12 +0100 (+0100), Chris Dent wrote: > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...] > > I feel like many of the people pushing this idea simply didn't > > get to experience the pain it causes the first time around and > > won't believe their peers who lived through it. > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2016-04-19 05:59:19 -0700: > On 04/19/2016 01:01 PM, Chris Dent wrote: > > We also, however, need to consider what the future might look like and > > at least for some people and situations > > I agree. > > > the future does not involve > > debs or rpms

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/19/2016 12:44 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2016-04-18 10:29:20 -0700: >> What I meant is if you have liberty Nova and liberty Cinder, and you >> want to upgrade Nova to Mitaka, you also upgrade Oslo to Mitaka and >> Cinder which was liberty either

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2016-04-18 11:22:38 -0700: > On 04/18/2016 12:33 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2016-04-18 10:23:37 -0500: > >> On 04/18/2016 08:24 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > >>> On 18/04/2016 13:51, Sean Dague wrote: > On

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Michał Jastrzębski's message of 2016-04-18 10:29:20 -0700: > What I meant is if you have liberty Nova and liberty Cinder, and you > want to upgrade Nova to Mitaka, you also upgrade Oslo to Mitaka and > Cinder which was liberty either needs to be upgraded or is broken, > therefore

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, at 08:14 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-04-19 15:00:24 +: > > On 2016-04-19 09:10:11 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: > > [...] > > > We have the global list and the upper constraints list, and both > > > are intended to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/19/2016 11:30 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: >> On 2016-04-19 14:59:19 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: >>> On 04/19/2016 01:01 PM, Chris Dent wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> [...] > Most users are consuming packages from distributions. Also, if > you're using

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

t;openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements > On 2016-04-19 14:59:19 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 04/19/2016 01:01 PM, Chris Dent wrote: > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/19/2016 04:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Thomas Goirand wrote: >> [...] >> Remember that in distros, there's only a single version of a library at >> any given time, at the exception of transitions (yes, in Red Hat it's >> technically possible to install multiple versions, but the policy >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

t;openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements > Hi Doug, > > I very much welcome opening such a thread before the discussion at the > summit, as often, sessions

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 04/19/2016 01:01 PM, Chris Dent wrote: Do I expect it all to happen like I want? No. Do I hope that my concerns will be integrated in the discussion? Yes. I fail to see what kind of concerns you have with the current situation. Could you attempt

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-04-19 15:00:24 +: > On 2016-04-19 09:10:11 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: > [...] > > We have the global list and the upper constraints list, and both > > are intended to be used to signal to packaging folks what we think > > ought to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Jeremy Stanley wrote: Could just be that my beard has gotten a little too grey, but I still very much prefer using stabilized software packaged by traditional Linux distributions or similar Unix derivatives and covered under security patched backports. My hope has always

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 2016-04-19 09:10:11 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: [...] > We have the global list and the upper constraints list, and both > are intended to be used to signal to packaging folks what we think > ought to be used. I'm glad that signaling is working, and maybe > that means you're right that

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 2016-04-19 14:59:19 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 04/19/2016 01:01 PM, Chris Dent wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Thomas Goirand wrote: [...] > > > Most users are consuming packages from distributions. Also, if > > > you're using containers, probably you will also prefer using > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2016-04-19 00:19:03 +0200: > Hi Doug, > > I very much welcome opening such a thread before the discussion at the > summit, as often, sessions are too short. Taking the time to write > things down first also helps having a more constructive discussion.

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/19/2016 01:01 PM, Chris Dent wrote: > We also, however, need to consider what the future might look like and > at least for some people and situations I agree. > the future does not involve > debs or rpms of OpenStack: packages and distributions are more trouble > than they are worth when

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-04-19 11:48:06 +0200: > Thomas Goirand wrote: > > [...] > > From what I understand, the biggesgt problems you're trying to solve is > > that managing the global-reqs is really time consuming from the release > > team point of view, and especially its

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Thomas, you've made a lot of great points here about the challenges faced by packaging and packagers of OpenStack. They are valid, important and need to be considered. I don't want to discount the work you do because it is awesome, important and I'm well aware that it can be a huge pain in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Thomas Goirand wrote: [...] From what I understand, the biggesgt problems you're trying to solve is that managing the global-reqs is really time consuming from the release team point of view, and especially its propagation to individual projects. There's IMO many things that we could do to

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Hi Doug, I very much welcome opening such a thread before the discussion at the summit, as often, sessions are too short. Taking the time to write things down first also helps having a more constructive discussion. Before I reply to each individual message below, let me attempt to reply to the

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/18/2016 02:10 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-04-18 13:58:03 -0500 (-0500), Matthew Thode wrote: >> Ya, I'd be happy to work more with upstream. I already review the >> stable-reqs updates and watch them for the stable branches I package >> for. Not sure what else is needed. > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-04-18 19:10:52 +: > On 2016-04-18 13:58:03 -0500 (-0500), Matthew Thode wrote: > > Ya, I'd be happy to work more with upstream. I already review the > > stable-reqs updates and watch them for the stable branches I package > > for. Not sure what

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 2016-04-18 13:58:03 -0500 (-0500), Matthew Thode wrote: > Ya, I'd be happy to work more with upstream. I already review the > stable-reqs updates and watch them for the stable branches I package > for. Not sure what else is needed. Reviewing the master branch openstack/requirements

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/18/2016 01:40 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2016-04-18 13:22:38 -0500: >> On 04/18/2016 12:33 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2016-04-18 10:23:37 -0500: On 04/18/2016 08:24 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > On

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2016-04-18 13:22:38 -0500: > On 04/18/2016 12:33 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2016-04-18 10:23:37 -0500: > >> On 04/18/2016 08:24 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > >>> On 18/04/2016 13:51, Sean Dague wrote: > On

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-04-18 13:49:31 -0400: > On 04/18/2016 01:33 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2016-04-18 10:23:37 -0500: > > >> To add to this, I'd also note that I as a packager would likely stop > >> packaging Openstack at whatever

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/18/2016 12:33 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2016-04-18 10:23:37 -0500: >> On 04/18/2016 08:24 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: >>> On 18/04/2016 13:51, Sean Dague wrote: On 04/18/2016 08:22 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Sean Dague wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Sean Dague wrote: Many (most?) people won't be doing those kinds of installations. If all-in- one installations are important to the rpm- and deb- based distributions then _they_ should be resolving the dependency issues local to their own

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/18/2016 01:33 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2016-04-18 10:23:37 -0500: >> To add to this, I'd also note that I as a packager would likely stop >> packaging Openstack at whatever release this goes into. While the >> option to package and ship a

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Hayes, Graham's message of 2016-04-18 13:24:40 +: > On 18/04/2016 13:51, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 04/18/2016 08:22 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Sean Dague wrote: > >> > >>> So if you have strong feelings and ideas, why not get them out in email > >>> now? That

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2016-04-18 10:23:37 -0500: > On 04/18/2016 08:24 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > > On 18/04/2016 13:51, Sean Dague wrote: > >> On 04/18/2016 08:22 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > >>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Sean Dague wrote: > >>> > So if you have strong feelings and

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

What I meant is if you have liberty Nova and liberty Cinder, and you want to upgrade Nova to Mitaka, you also upgrade Oslo to Mitaka and Cinder which was liberty either needs to be upgraded or is broken, therefore during upgrade you need to do cinder and nova at the same time. DB can be

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/18/2016 10:57 AM, Michał Jastrzębski wrote: > So I also want to stress out that shared libraries are huge pain > during upgrades. While I'm not in favor of packages with embedded > virtualenvs (as Matt pointed out, this has a lot of issues), having > shared dependency pool pretty much means

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

So I also want to stress out that shared libraries are huge pain during upgrades. While I'm not in favor of packages with embedded virtualenvs (as Matt pointed out, this has a lot of issues), having shared dependency pool pretty much means that you need to upgrade *everything* that is openstack at

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/18/2016 08:24 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > On 18/04/2016 13:51, Sean Dague wrote: >> On 04/18/2016 08:22 AM, Chris Dent wrote: >>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Sean Dague wrote: >>> So if you have strong feelings and ideas, why not get them out in email now? That will help in the framing of

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 18/04/2016 13:51, Sean Dague wrote: > On 04/18/2016 08:22 AM, Chris Dent wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Sean Dague wrote: >> >>> So if you have strong feelings and ideas, why not get them out in email >>> now? That will help in the framing of the conversation. >> >> I won't be at summit and I

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/18/2016 08:22 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Sean Dague wrote: > >> So if you have strong feelings and ideas, why not get them out in email >> now? That will help in the framing of the conversation. > > I won't be at summit and I feel pretty strongly about this topic, so >

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Sean Dague wrote: So if you have strong feelings and ideas, why not get them out in email now? That will help in the framing of the conversation. I won't be at summit and I feel pretty strongly about this topic, so I'll throw out my comments: I agree with the basic

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/17/2016 11:34 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 04/17/2016 10:13 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> I am organizing a summit session for the cross-project track to >> (re)consider how we manage our list of global dependencies [1]. >> Some of the changes I propose would have a big impact, and so I >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Monty Taylor wrote: On 04/17/2016 10:13 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: I am organizing a summit session for the cross-project track to (re)consider how we manage our list of global dependencies [1]. Some of the changes I propose would have a big impact, and so I want to ensure everyone doing

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/17/2016 10:34 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 04/17/2016 10:13 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> I am organizing a summit session for the cross-project track to >> (re)consider how we manage our list of global dependencies [1]. >> Some of the changes I propose would have a big impact, and so I >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2016-04-17 10:34:36 -0500: > On 04/17/2016 10:13 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > I am organizing a summit session for the cross-project track to > > (re)consider how we manage our list of global dependencies [1]. > > Some of the changes I propose would have a

Re: [openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

On 04/17/2016 10:13 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: I am organizing a summit session for the cross-project track to (re)consider how we manage our list of global dependencies [1]. Some of the changes I propose would have a big impact, and so I want to ensure everyone doing packaging work for distros is