Update patch set 3
Patch Set 3: > Patch Set 3: Code-Review-2 > > Let me please block this for just a tiny moment, until I have please answers to a few (stupid) questions... > thanks I have tried to reply inline > > What pushes tripleo, to test wallaby on centos 8/stream, AND later centos 9 simultanously? Same to Xena: what pushes tripleo community to run CI for it on both C8 stream AND C9? Why can't we only test on that we have available - centos 8/stream. Is there so tight connection for upstream so it becomes mandatory to run it on C9 to not break downstream on rhel 9?.. > on the tight connection - it depends, there is for wallaby because we our rh prod chain imports from upstream wallaby for OSP17 for xena d/stream is irrelevant in the same way as ussuri is irrelevant as we don't import that so isn't directly part of the osp production chain. So I think you make a good point otherwise, i.e. we don't *have* to maintain both types of CI? We start with what we have so c8-stream then when it becomes available we move to the c9 stream without maintaining both. There will be some overlap for a brief period I guess but I think we can consider this point. > Finally, could we "detach" upstream from that mandatory too-much-future-looking base OS requirement instead of detaching it from the unified cadence model? And if we don't want to have stable/xena, could we afford not branching it within the unified cadence rules but not following the stable policy? I am not clear what you mean here. Do you mean, stay with the current release policy but choose not to create a X branch? I don't think this is an option, i.e. we are bound to create a branch, albeit 'up to 6 months late' since we are following cycle with intermediary. Patch-set: 3
This commit is contained in:
Gerrit User 8449
Gerrit Code Review
parent
cb252ca9d3
commit
7203621a3c