[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [rdo-list] Python-shade in RDO

On 26/08/16 16:31, Alan Pevec wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2016 07:09, "Graeme Gillies" <ggillies redhat com
> <mailto:ggillies redhat com>> wrote:
>> Sorry I'm a bit confused here, are you actually saying that shade can't
>> be in RDO because it lives in a slightly different git repo location, a
>> location by which, is still referenced as perfectly valid for openstack
>> projects in Big tent
> https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/projects.yaml
>> I'm also confused why you think the clients should also be moved out of
>> rdo into another repo as well. This is just splitting the repos up
>> needlessly isn't it? Shade, like oslo and other Openstack libraries,
>> should be part of RDO.
> Problem with Shade is that it'd branchless so putting it into one RDO
> release repo won't work. That's why separate repo is suggested, which
> would also solve the other issue Haikel mentioned: upstream infra
> enables RDO repo only to get openvswitch which is not in EL7 base, so we
> would put that in rdo-extras.
> Cheers,
> Alan

Sorry just so I am 100% clear here, in order for python-shade to just go
into RDO it would need to have stable release branches, which I would
assume match the standard Openstack release naming (liberty, mitaka, etc).

Pulling back a bit, can we talk about the charter regarding RDO and
packaging Openstack projects (which fall under big tent)?

Under big tent, projects are not beholden to the explicit 6 month
release cycle that has been mandated in the past. Most projects choose
to stick with it, but there are a couple which don't.

The official governance documentation [1] references projects can have
the following release management


The ones that are probably most interesting to this discussion are
release:cycle-trailing and release:independent (of which shade uses).

Can we get the packaging documentation modified to include an official
policy on how the projects with the different release cycles are to be
treated? I don't believe that projects with release:independent should
be excluded from RDO, in fact, they definitely aren't because we package
and ship rally as part of RDO and that uses release:independent.



[1] https://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/

Graeme Gillies
Principal Systems Administrator
Openstack Infrastructure
Red Hat Australia

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]