Open Stack

For us, we still maintain icehouse release because our customers do
need LTS for OpenStack, just as what Redhat, Ubuntu, Oracle do. Most
of our customers would like their core infra to be as stable as
possible, and we only provide critical patches from upstream if
necessary. Rolling upgrade sounds more exciting but not realistic for
enterprises IT.

Here's a situation that I discovered when I reviewed some patches in
the upstream. Currently, for most of the projects, only master branch
is well looked after. Even for those stable branches, backport work is
not that sufficient.

During my daily work, I need to check stable/icehouse, stable/juno and
master to make sure there are some patches available that are
necessary to backport. Without doubt, most of patches that I decided
to backport were from master branch. Actually I only backport those
patches for stability, like race condition, logging, other logical
bugs causing malfunction, etc.

- Li Ma (Nick)

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Goodwin, Dustin
<dustin.goodwin at rbccm.com> wrote:
> It's a great issue to raise with this group. In enterprise IT today we tend to test things ruthlessly and then run them until:
> 1. We absolutely can't live with some feature we need in a new release
> 2. Someone in compliance runs a report and tells us which products no longer comply with N-1 policies
> 3. The vendor end support
> 4. Some giant industry event forces upgrade budgets to pop into existence (e.g. y2k)
>
> Of course we wish that wasn't the case and we could utilize CI/CD principles to keep our platforms current. But typically in core infrastructure we land it and apply critical patches for a good long time often ignoring 1 or more major releases.
>
> - Dustin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Voelker [mailto:mvoelker at vmware.com]
> Sent: 2015, February, 10 11:20 AM
> To: enterprise-wg at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: [Win The Enterprise-wg] Stable Branch Maintenance
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Folks,
>
> We’ve identified in the past that stability as one of the four key concerns for enterprise adoption of OpenStack. [1]  I suspect that most enterprise adopters won’t be “chasing trunk” but will be instead running a past stable release.  As such, I wanted to make sure this group was aware of a couple of conversations going on over on openstack-dev concerning the challenges of maintaining stable branches. [2] [3]  For those of you attending the operator’s midcycle meetup in Philadelphia next month, there’s currently an item on the agenda to discuss this. [4]
>
> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/enterprise-wg/2015-January/000066.html
>
> [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-February/056353.html
>
> [3] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-February/056457.html
>
> [4] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PHL-ops-meetup
>
> At Your Service,
>
> Mark T. Voelker
> OpenStack Architect
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
>
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU2i/NAAoJELUJLUWGN7CbT0cP/RNi+1bJqYLhv50eqHDa6y+q
> TxuOtFKgePvjOunjmUXRMYIbtx4HMgs7T+HolM4FdyAS8MWSZme8EutQF5jEN0dh
> G0UOrN0VmFabvrkX98jIM+rOPO6IpSFdi5uQiKhXgaPuGzkmt63Dp+Qjsi6H6MyE
> 3Oy8gRWrYKRMBnFoxE7aJEl7jxtNs+0wogaQY4TIPQm3G80E+mQ5B1BUExheg/kE
> g+BCz+jDSlhowyHIkFbetdfyD2vSmuWyFAQQwBzxYc20p8y6MLt70yeF/1rbVEa6
> E23Ay8QmEG3oTvBU3a+kOc2wOeO4B8I1dWDLDoJYtoJF5E1CIIyV/mZG0tyksI3e
> RgRF2se4FUqMjFR2BKmY4Q8hPgon0EbJVB5A6GKq83/rXQLMU9V5mnNHfGHfV9Fx
> Y2dv8KPZAYhno2K9Wha8XnaDD6ffaw7YGWbZJWuh/DbYphq/rLeuujbgUWoPYWPK
> 5ze/91mee8angvFC2XkA+63iacnhdFSY3jFuTAYrCZ7vr8RJy+nVmb+aHxnRQl30
> CSFUb4sDHMQkyl3SZSQA4Rf2at0ql9vrPPY4aoupv4sOAcbxnWkqbMMFDgBp4xjn
> 0eJV//iDDSxwdSYRnPSA0SShfspuQbddMiFK+VMPd9M4jm+q7mIYF1f9OH+hmy2m
> 0v8aREpebOVHjNBqffXk
> =q/32
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Enterprise-wg mailing list
> Enterprise-wg at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/enterprise-wg
> ________________________________________
>
> This E-Mail (including any attachments) may contain privileged or confidential information.  It is intended only for the addressee(s) indicated above.
>
> The sender does not waive any of its rights, privileges or other protections respecting this information.
>
> Any distribution, copying or other use of this E-Mail or the information it contains, by other than an intended recipient, is not sanctioned and is prohibited.
>
> If you received this E-Mail in error, please delete it and advise the sender (by return E-Mail or otherwise) immediately.
>
> This E-Mail (including any attachments) has been scanned for viruses.
>
> It is believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened.
>
> However, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free.
>
> The sender accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
>
> E-Mail received by or sent from RBC Capital Markets is subject to review by Supervisory personnel.
>
> Such communications are retained and may be produced to regulatory authorities or others with legal rights to the information.
>
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:  TO COMPLY WITH U.S. TREASURY REGULATIONS, WE ADVISE YOU THAT ANY U.S. FEDERAL TAX ADVICE INCLUDED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, TO AVOID ANY U.S. FEDERAL TAX PENALTIES OR TO PROMOTE, MARKET, OR RECOMMEND TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TRANSACTION OR MATTER.
> _______________________________________________
> Enterprise-wg mailing list
> Enterprise-wg at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/enterprise-wg



-- 

Li Ma (Nick)
Email: skywalker.nick at gmail.com