On 4/19/16, 2:09 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thie...@openstack.org> wrote:
>Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: >>> I don't mind that much for stable/liberty, since it predates the >>> "officialness" of Kolla: I'm fine with any solution there. I'm more >>> concerned about stable/mitaka and going forward. Stable branches are >>> supposed to be known quantities, slow moving and safe changes. What >>> you're proposing wouldn't be an option for stable/mitaka -- so I'd like >>> to make sure we don't find ourselves in a similar situation in the >>>future. >> >> Going forward this will not happen again. I agree a stable branch >>should >> be a slow rate of change repository but also a safe place to rely on. >>At >> present stable/liberty is completely unsafe, so much so that I >>personally >> wrote a document in our docs.oo pages that says "DON'T UE IT". We are >> only backporting high/critical bugs which are legitimate bugs and not >> features to our stable branches. Note we will be backporting any gate >> changes, (which could be considered "features", but this is to simplify >> our lives so we don't have different gates for different versions of >> OpenStack. >> >> The main reason this won't happen again is we have decoupled the ansible >> 1.9 pin on docker 1.8.2. Now we can use any version of Docker we need, >> which is 1.10 and greater. >> >> Hope the context is useful. > >OK, as I said, liberty is pre-official so I'm fine with any solution >here. We seem to be in agreement that the proposed solution should not >be applied on stable/mitaka and later. Seem to be/are 100% in agreement. Regards -steve > >-- >Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
