Open Stack

Walter A. Boring IV <walter.boring at hpe.com> wrote:

> On 08/08/2016 02:28 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>> Duncan Thomas <duncan.thomas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 August 2016 at 21:12, Matthew Treinish <mtreinish at kortar.org> wrote:
>>> Ignoring all that, this is also contrary to how we perform testing in  
>>> OpenStack.
>>> We don't turn off entire classes of testing we have so we can land  
>>> patches,
>>> that's just a recipe for disaster.
>>>
>>> But is it more of a disaster (for the consumers) than zero testing,  
>>> zero review, scattered around the internet  
>>> if-you're-lucky-with-a-good-wind you'll maybe get the right patch set?  
>>> Because that's where we are right now, and vendors, distributors and  
>>> the cinder core team are all saying it's a disaster.
>>
>> If consumers rely on upstream releases, then they are expected to  
>> migrate to newer releases after EOL, not switch to a random branch on  
>> the internet. If they rely on some commercial product, then they usually  
>> have an extended period of support and certification for their drivers,  
>> so it’s not a problem for them.
>>
>> Ihar
> This is entirely unrealistic.  Force customers to upgrade.   Good luck  
> explaining to a bank that in order to get their cinder driver fix in,  
> they have to upgrade their entire OpenStack deployment. Real world  
> customers simply will balk at this all day long.

Real world customers will pay for engineering to support their software,  
either their own or of one of OpenStack vendors. There is no free lunch  
from upstream here.

Ihar