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(a)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
release:cycle-with-milestones
release:cycle-with-intermediary
release:cycle-trailing
release:independent
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.
Regards,
Graeme
[1] https://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/
--
Graeme Gillies
Principal Systems Administrator
Openstack Infrastructure
Red Hat Australia