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

Clint Byrum clint at fewbar.com
Sat Dec 16 15:56:02 UTC 2017

Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2017-12-15 16:15:04 +0100:
> On 12/14/2017 12:44 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > We can take stock of the intermediate releases over the last year, and make
> > sure they all work together once a year. Chris Jones mentioned that we should
> > give users time between milestones and release. I suggest we release an
> > intermediary and _support it_. Let distros pick those up when they need to ship
> > new features.
> I don't think this will happen.
> > Let users jump ahead for a few projects when they need the bug fixes.
> And that, I don't agree. New releases aren't to fix bugs, bugs should be
> fixed in stable too, otherwise you face new issues trying to get a
> bugfix. And that's why we have stable.

We have stable for critical bug fixes. However, performance enhancements,
scalability improvements, API weirdness, are not backported. In general,
most of what arrives in each commit is good for most users. Bug fixes
are not all backported. If a regression happens, it happens because it
leverages a scenario we don't properly test.

> > I understand the belief that nobody will run the intermediaries.
> Not only that. Everyone is lagging a few release behind, and currently,
> upstream OpenStack don't care backporting to older releases.

Right but if you de-couple projects a bit, folks can upgrade the stuff that
they need to when they need to. As Matt R. says, this kinda works today. I
suggest we start testing it more and asserting that it works.

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list