[openstack-dev] [tc] [all] OpenStack moving both too fast and too slow at the same time
doug at doughellmann.com
Sat May 6 20:56:03 UTC 2017
Excerpts from Octave J. Orgeron's message of 2017-05-05 15:35:16 -0600:
> Hi Matt,
> And this is actually part of the problem for vendors. Many Oracle
> engineers, including myself, have tried to get features and fixes pushed
> upstream. While that may sound easy, the reality is that it isn't! In
> many cases, it takes months for us to get something in or we get shot
> down altogether. Here are the big issues we run into:
> * If it's in support of Oracle specific technologies such as Solaris,
> ZFS, MySQL Cluster, etc. we are often shunned away because it's not
> Linux or "mainstream" enough. A great example is how our Nova
> drivers for Solaris Zones, Kernel Zones, and LDoms are turned away.
> So we have to spend extra cycles maintaining our patches because
> they are shunned away from getting into the gate.
> * If we release an OpenStack distribution and a year later, a major
> CVE security bug comes along.. we will patch it. But is there a way
> for us to push those changes back in? No, because the branch for
> that release is EOL'd and burned. So we have to maintain our own
> copy of the repos so we have something to work against.
> * Taking a release and productizing it takes more than just pulling
> the git repo and building packages. It requires integrated testing
> on a given OS distribution, hardware, and infrastructure. We have to
> test it against our own products and handle upgrades from the
> previous product release. We have to make sure it works for
> customers. Then we have to spin up our distribution, documentation, etc.
> Lastly, just throwing resources at this isn't going to solve the
> cultural or logistics problems. Everyone has to work together and Oracle
Can you expand on what you see as cultural and logistical problems?
> will continue to try and work with the community. If other vendors,
> customers, and operators are willing to work together to build an LTS
> branch and the governance around it, then Oracle will support that
> effort. But to go it alone I think is risky for any single individual or
> vendor. It's pretty obvious that over the past year, a lot of vendors
> that were ponying up efforts have had to pull the plug on their
> investments. A lot of the issues that I've out-lined effect the
> bottom-line for OpenStack vendors. This is not about which vendor does
> more or less or who has the bigger budget to spend. It's about making it
> easier for vendors to support and for customers to consume.
> On 5/5/2017 2:40 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> > If you're spending exorbitant amounts of time patching in your forks
> > to keep up with the upstream code, then you're doing the wrong thing.
> > Upstream your changes, or work against the APIs, or try to get the
> > APIs you need upstream to build on for your downstream features.
> > Otherwise this is all just burden you've put on yourself and I can't
> > justify an LTS support model because it might make someone's
> > downstream fork strategy easier to manage. As noted earlier, I don't
> > see Oracle developers leading the way upstream. If you want to see
> > major changes, then contribute those resources, get involved and make
> > a lasting effect.
More information about the OpenStack-dev