On 2015-05-29 16:30:12 +0100 (+0100), Dave Walker wrote: > This is generally my opinion as-well, I always hoped that *every* > commit would be considered a release rather than an arbitrary > tagged date. [...]
If we switch away from lockstep major/minor release versioning anyway (again separate discussion underway but seems a distinct possibility) then I think the confusion over why stable point releases are mismatched becomes less of an issue. At that point we may want to reconsider and actually tag each of them with a sequential micro (patch in semver terminology) version bump. Could help in communication around security fixes in particular. > I also wondered if it might make sense for us to do a better job of > storing metadata of what the shasums of projects used to pass gate for > a given commit - as this might be both useful as a "known good state" > but also, slightly unrelated, might be helpful in debugging gate > blockages in the future. I think if we get stable branches back into the openstack/openstack pseudo-repo it might help in this regard. Also Robert's plan for requirements revamp should make it easier for us to keep track of what versions of which dependencies were used when testing these. -- Jeremy Stanley __________________________________________________________________________ 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
