[openstack-dev] [all] Switching to longer development cycles

Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com
Thu Dec 14 02:44:24 UTC 2017

How about add to our biannual questionnaire how often customer upgrade their openstack environment?

-----Original Message-----
From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thierry at openstack.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4:20 PM
To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Switching to longer development cycles

Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Tim Bell <tim.bell at cern.ch> wrote:
>> There is a risk that deployment to production is delayed, and therefore feedback is delayed and the wait for the ‘initial bug fixes before we deploy to prod’ gets longer.
> There is always a rush at the Feature Freeze point in a cycle to get things in, or they will be delayed for 6 months. With the year-long cycle, now anything missing Feature Freeze will be delayed by a year. The long cycle also means that a lot more time will be spent backporting things to the current release, since people won’t be able to wait a whole year for some improvements.
> Maybe it’s just the dev in me, but I prefer shorter cycles (CD, anyone?).

Yes, I'll admit I'm struggling with that part of the proposal too. We could use intermediary releases but there would always be a "more important" release.

Is the "rush" at the end of the cycle still a thing those days ? From a release management perspective it felt like the pressure was reduced in recent cycles, with less and less FFEs. But that may be that PTLs have gotten better at denying them, not that the pressure is reduced now that we are past the hype peak...

Thierry Carrez (ttx)

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list