I'm sorry to restart this topic. I don't mind if we upgrade to 0.1.8, but then I will need to have patches for Havana to support version 0.1.8. Otherwise, it's going to be very difficult on the packaging side: I will need to upload 0.1.8 for Icehouse, but then it will break everything else (eg: Havana) that is currently in Sid.
Was there some patches already for that? If so, please point to them so that I can cherry-pick them, and carry the patches in the Debian packages (it doesn't have to be backported to the Havana branch, I'm fine keeping the patches in the packages, if at least they are identified). Is there a way that I can grep all commits in Gerrit, to see if there was such patches committed recently? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) On 10/24/2013 09:37 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > It seems like adopting 0.1.8 is the right approach. If it doesn't work > with other projects, we should work to help those projects get updated > to work with it. > > --Morgan > > On Thursday, October 24, 2013, Zhi Yan Liu wrote: > > Hi all, > > Adopt 0.1.8 as iso8601 minimum version: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53567/ > > zhiyan > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Dolph Mathews > <dolph.math...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Robert Collins > <robe...@robertcollins.net <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > >> > >> On 24 October 2013 07:34, Mark Washenberger > >> <mark.washenber...@markwash.net <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > Hi folks! > >> > > >> > 1) Adopt 0.1.8 as the minimum version in openstack-requirements. > >> > 2) Do nothing (i.e. let Glance behavior depend on iso8601 in > this way, > >> > and > >> > just fix the tests so they don't care about these extra formats) > >> > 3) Make Glance work with the added formats even if 0.1.4 is > installed. > >> > >> I think we should do (1) because both (2) will permit surprising, > >> nonobvious changes in behaviour and (3) is just nasty engineering. > >> Alternatively, add a (4) which is (2) with "whinge on startup if > 0.1.4 > >> is installed" to make identifying this situation easy. > > > > > > I'm in favor of (1), unless there's a reason why 0.1.8 not viable for > > another project or packager, in which case, I've never heard the term > > "whinge" before so there should definitely be some of that. > > > >> > >> > >> The last thing a new / upgraded deployment wants is something like > >> nova, or a third party API script failing in nonobvious ways with no > >> breadcrumbs to lead them to 'upgrade iso8601' as an answer. > >> > >> -Rob > >> > >> -- > >> Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com <javascript:;>> > >> Distinguished Technologist > >> HP Converged Cloud > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org <javascript:;> > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -Dolph > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org <javascript:;> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org <javascript:;> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
