[all][release] One following-cycle release model to bind them all
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 13:02, Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmx.com> wrote:
> > After having discussed this here and in several IRC discussions, there
> > appears to still be enough cases warranting keeping two cycle-tied
> > models (one with RCs and a round version number, the other strictly
> > following semver). The simplification gains may not be worth
> > disrupting long-established habits and tweaking all our validation
> > toolchain.
> > Instead, I'll work on improving documentation to guide new
> > deliverables in this choice, and reduce corner cases and exceptions.
> > Thanks for entertaining the idea and reaching out. Periodically
> > reconsidering why we do things the way we do them is healthy, and
> > avoids cargo-culting processes forever.
> Thanks for bringing up the idea Thierry. I agree, it's worth looking at
> what we're doing and why occasionally to make sure we're not doing
> things just because "that's what we do."
> I think some good feedback came out of all of this at least, so maybe we
> can still simplify some things, even if we can't fully collapse our
> release models.
I would be interested in a relaxation of the requirement for RC1 and
stable branch cut to coincide, if possible. This would simplify the
kolla release process.