On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:24:34PM -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote: >> >> >> On 2/9/2015 12:23 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: >> > >> >On Feb 9, 2015 10:04 AM, "Matt Riedemann" <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com >> ><mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>> wrote: >> > > >> > > There are at least two blocking bugs: >> > > >> > > 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/grenade/+bug/1419913 >> > > >> > > Sounds like jogo is working a javelin fix for this. I'm not aware of >> >a patch to review though. >> > >> >We need to stop trying to install tempest in the same env as stable/* code. >> > >> >I should be able to revise/respond to comments shortly. >> > >> >https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153080/ >> > >> >https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153702/ >> > >> >This is also blocking my effort to pin stable dependencies (Dean's >> >devstack changes are needed before we can pin stable dependencies as well). >> > >> > > >> > > 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1419919 >> > > >> > > I'm not sure yet what's going on with this one. >> > > >> >> Tracking etherpad: >> >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/wedged-stable-gate-feb-2015 > > > So I think it's time we called the icehouse branch and marked it EOL. We > originally conditioned the longer support window on extra people stepping > forward to keep things working. I believe this latest issue is just the latest > indication that this hasn't happened. Issue 1 listed above is being caused by > the icehouse branch during upgrades. The fact that a stable release was pushed > at the same time things were wedged on the juno branch is just the latest > evidence to me that things aren't being maintained as they should be. Looking > at > the #openstack-qa irc log from today or the etherpad about trying to sort this > issue should be an indication that no one has stepped up to help with the > maintenance and it shows given the poor state of the branch. > > If I'm not mistaken with our original support window lengths Icehouse would be > EOL'd around now. So it's time we stopped pretending we'll be maintaining this > branch for several more months and just go through the normal EOL procedure. >
Was this serious? I mean, we just say; 'sorry, yes we said support until X; but now it's hard so we're going to drop it'. Tell me I'm missing something here? > -Matt Treinish > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
