Thanks Thierry. To me it sounds like even a better release model for us. We can discuss it with a team at the next team meeting and make a decision.
Renat Akhmerov @Nokia On 1 Jun 2017, 17:06 +0700, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org>, wrote: > Renat Akhmerov wrote: > > On 31 May 2017, 15:08 +0700, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org>, wrote: > > > > [mistral] > > > > mistral - blocking sqlalchemy - milestones > > > > > > I wonder why mistral is in requirements. Looks like tripleo-common is > > > depending on it ? Could someone shine some light on this ? It might just > > > mean mistral-lib is missing a few functions, and switching the release > > > model of mistral itself might be overkill ? > > > > This dependency is currently needed to create custom Mistral actions. It > > was originally not the best architecture and one of the reasons to > > create 'mistral-lib' was in getting rid of dependency on ‘mistral’ by > > moving all that’s needed for creating actions into a lib (plus something > > else). The thing is that the transition is not over and APIs that we put > > into ‘mistral-lib’ are still experimental. The plan is to complete this > > initiative, including docs and needed refactoring, till the end of Pike. > > > > What possible negative consequences may we have if we switch release > > model to "cycle-with-intermediary”? > > There are no "negative" consequences. There are just consequences in > choosing a new release model, so I don't want mistral to switch to that > model *only* because it didn't complete moving some code out of mistral > proper into a more consumable mistral-lib. It feels like we wouldn't be > having that discussion if the code was more adequately split :) > > First, the cycle-with-intermediary model means that every tag is a > "release", which is expected to be consumed by users. You have to be > pretty sure that it works -- there won't be any release candidates to > protect you. This means your automated testing coverage needs to be > pretty good. > > Second, the cycle-with-intermediary model is less "driven" by the > release team -- you won't have as many reminders (like milestones), or > best-practice deadlines (like feature freeze) to help you. Your team is > basically doing release management internally, deciding when to release, > when to slow down, etc. > > As such, this model appeals either to very young projects (which need a > lot of flexibility and need to put things out fast), and very mature > projects (where automated testing coverage is pretty complete, release > liaisons take up much of the release management, and things don't change > that often). Projects in the middle usually prefer the > cycle-with-milestones model. > > > Practically, all our releases, even > > those made after milestones, are considered stable and I don’t see > > issues if we’ll be producing full releases every time. > > Yes, it sounds like you could switch to that model without too much pain. > > > Btw, how does > > stable branch maintenance work in this case? I guess it should be the > > same, one stable branch per cycle. I’d appreciate if you could clarify this. > > There is no change in terms of stable releases, you still maintain only > one branch per cycle. The last intermediary release in a given cycle is > where the stable branch for the cycle is cut. > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
