Open Stack

On 04/05/17 11:18 -0400, Jonathan Proulx wrote:
>On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 04:14:07PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>:I agree that our current stable branch model is inappropriate:
>:maintaining stable branches for one year only is a bit useless. But I
>:only see two outcomes:
>:
>:1/ The OpenStack community still thinks there is a lot of value in doing
>:this work upstream, in which case organizations should invest resources
>:in making that happen (starting with giving the Stable branch
>:maintenance PTL a job), and then, yes, we should definitely consider
>:things like LTS or longer periods of support for stable branches, to
>:match the evolving usage of OpenStack.
>:
>:2/ The OpenStack community thinks this is better handled downstream, and
>:we should just get rid of them completely. This is a valid approach, and
>:a lot of other open source communities just do that.
>:
>:The current reality in terms of invested resources points to (2). I
>:personally would prefer (1), because that lets us address security
>:issues more efficiently and avoids duplicating effort downstream. But
>:unfortunately I don't control where development resources are posted.

Have there been issues with downstream distros not addressing security fixes
properly?

>Yes it seems that way to me as well.
>
>just killing the stable branch model without some plan either
>internally or externally to provide a better stability story seems
>like it would send the wrong signal.  So I'd much prefer the distro
>people to either back option 1) with significant resources so it can
>really work or make public commitments to handle option 2) in a
>reasonable way.

I think downstream distros are already doing #2, unless I'm missing something.
How public/vocal they are about it might be a different discussion.

I'd prefer #1 too because I'd rather have everything upstream. However, with the
current flux of people, the current roadmaps and the current status of the
community, it's unrealistic for us to expect #1 to happen. So, I'd rather
dedicate time documenting/communicating #2 properly.

Now, one big problem with LTS releases of OpenStack (regardless they happen
upstream or downstream) is the upgrade path, which is one of the problems Drew
raised.

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170504/a59f2718/attachment.sig>