[openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Clint Byrum clint at fewbar.com
Fri Nov 6 18:12:21 UTC 2015


Excerpts from Dan Smith's message of 2015-11-06 09:37:44 -0800:
> > Worth mentioning that OpenStack releases that come out at the same time
> > as Ubuntu LTS releases (12.04 + Essex, 14.04 + Icehouse, 16.04 + Mitaka)
> > are supported for 5 years by Canonical so are already kind of an LTS.
> > Support in this context means patches, updates and commercial support
> > (for a fee).
> > For paying customers 3 years of patches, updates and commercial support
> > for April releases, (Kilo, O, Q etc..) is also available.
> 
> Yeah. IMHO, this is what you pay your vendor for. I don't think upstream
> maintaining an older release for so long is a good use of people or CI
> resources, especially given how hard it can be for us to keep even
> recent stable releases working and maintained.
> 

The argument in the original post, I think, is that we should not
stand in the way of the vendors continuing to collaborate on stable
maintenance in the upstream context after the EOL date. We already have
distro vendors doing work in the stable branches, but at EOL we push
them off to their respective distro-specific homes.

As much as I'd like everyone to get on the CD train, I think it might
make sense to enable the vendors to not diverge, but instead let them
show up with people and commitment and say "Hey we're going to keep
Juno/Mitaka/etc alive!".

So perhaps what would make sense is defining a process by which they can
make that happen.

Note that it's not just backporters though. It's infra resources too.



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list