Open Stack

Assuming that the release isn’t changing any APIs, etc.  If its just a bug fix, it would allow this.

If any incompat is introduced it’d be a 0.x.0 update.

--Eric

From: "Fox, Kevin M" <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov>
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM
To: Eric Ernst <eric.ernst at intel.com>, "Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos" <jose.carlos.venegas.munoz at intel.com>, "akapoor87 at gmail.com" <akapoor87 at gmail.com>, rajudev <rajudev at disroot.org>
Cc: "kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io" <kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io>
Subject: RE: [kata-release] release cadence, process

Based on your 0.0.x comment, I think I know, but am verifying...

This would still allow upgrading some components while running older components on the same host?

Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________
From: Ernst, Eric [eric.ernst at intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 10:59 AM
To: Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos; akapoor87 at gmail.com; rajudev
Cc: kata-dev at lists.katacontainers.io
Subject: [kata-dev] [kata-release] release cadence, process
Carlos et al,

I am proposing that we continue to roll releases; we are having a good amount of fixes merge and I think it warrants having a regular weekly cadence (likely a 0.0.x update).  I believe we discussed this before – let’s start driving it.

Carlos, Raju, Akshay – from prior emails/request for volunteers, you were all listed for folks to help with packaging and release.  Carlos, is the process defined enough that you think we can start rotating the release duties among more stakeholders?

WDYT?

Thx,
Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.katacontainers.io/pipermail/kata-dev/attachments/20180718/cba779cc/attachment-0001.html>