[Pulp-dev] Request to explicitly stop 2.14 at 2.14.3

Michael Hrivnak mhrivnak at redhat.com
Mon Nov 13 21:54:15 UTC 2017

That all sounds reasonable. I think it's fine to assume we won't do a
2.14.4 unless there is an emergency.

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Patrick Creech <pcreech at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-11-10 at 15:08 -0500, Jeremy Audet wrote:
> > Do you think it will be possible to push an emergency 2.14.4 build out
> the door if necessary? Or
> > an emergency 2.13.z build? I love the idea of throwing away old
> processes that are weighing us
> > down. But there are business needs to consider.
> With the maturation of 2.14, I don't see an upstream case to push a 2.13
> build at this point, and I
> haven't heard any requests for one.
> Otherwise, what is exceptional is exceptional.  I don't plan on removing
> all traces of the build
> scripts and jobs that produce these, just turning them off.  If an
> exceptional case arises upstream
> then a discussion could be had.
> I just think it will be a good idea here to provide a clean upstream line
> to switch, so as to keep
> the confusion about what to do at a minimum for all parties invovled.
> Thanks,
> Patrick
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev


Michael Hrivnak

Principal Software Engineer, RHCE

Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20171113/6c7f00d4/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list