[openstack-dev] Upstream LTS Releases
rochelle.grober at huawei.com
Tue Nov 14 21:10:58 UTC 2017
This discussion and the people interested in it seem like a perfect application of the SIG process. By turning LTS into a SIG, everyone can discuss the issues on the SIG mailing list and the discussion shouldn't end up split. If it turns into a project, great. If a solution is found that doesn't need a new project, great. Even once there is a decision on how to move forward, there will still be implementation issues and enhancements, so the SIG could very well be long-lived. But the important aspect of this is: keeping the discussion in a place where both devs and ops can follow the whole thing and act on recommendations.
Food for thought.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blair Bethwaite [mailto:blair.bethwaite at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:31 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>; openstack-oper. <openstack-
> operators at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Upstream LTS Releases
> Hi all - please note this conversation has been split variously across -dev and -
> One small observation from the discussion so far is that it seems as though
> there are two issues being discussed under the one banner:
> 1) maintain old releases for longer
> 2) do stable releases less frequently
> It would be interesting to understand if the people who want longer
> maintenance windows would be helped by #2.
> On 14 November 2017 at 09:25, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
> > Excerpts from Bogdan Dobrelya's message of 2017-11-14 17:08:31 +0100:
> >> >> The concept, in general, is to create a new set of cores from
> >> >> these groups, and use 3rd party CI to validate patches. There are
> >> >> lots of details to be worked out yet, but our amazing UC (User
> >> >> Committee) will be begin working out the details.
> >> >
> >> > What is the most worrying is the exact "take over" process. Does it
> >> > mean that the teams will give away the +2 power to a different
> >> > team? Or will our (small) stable teams still be responsible for
> >> > landing changes? If so, will they have to learn how to debug 3rd party CI
> >> >
> >> > Generally, I'm scared of both overloading the teams and losing the
> >> > control over quality at the same time :) Probably the final proposal will
> clarify it..
> >> The quality of backported fixes is expected to be a direct (and
> >> only?) interest of those new teams of new cores, coming from users
> >> and operators and vendors. The more parties to establish their 3rd
> >> party
> > We have an unhealthy focus on "3rd party" jobs in this discussion. We
> > should not assume that they are needed or will be present. They may
> > be, but we shouldn't build policy around the assumption that they
> > will. Why would we have third-party jobs on an old branch that we
> > don't have on master, for instance?
> >> checking jobs, the better proposed changes communicated, which
> >> directly affects the quality in the end. I also suppose, contributors
> >> from ops world will likely be only struggling to see things getting
> >> fixed, and not new features adopted by legacy deployments they're used
> to maintain.
> >> So in theory, this works and as a mainstream developer and
> >> maintainer, you need no to fear of losing control over LTS code :)
> >> Another question is how to not block all on each over, and not push
> >> contributors away when things are getting awry, jobs failing and
> >> merging is blocked for a long time, or there is no consensus reached
> >> in a code review. I propose the LTS policy to enforce CI jobs be
> >> non-voting, as a first step on that way, and giving every LTS team
> >> member a core rights maybe? Not sure if that works though.
> > I'm not sure what change you're proposing for CI jobs and their voting
> > status. Do you mean we should make the jobs non-voting as soon as the
> > branch passes out of the stable support period?
> > Regarding the review team, anyone on the review team for a branch that
> > goes out of stable support will need to have +2 rights in that branch.
> > Otherwise there's no point in saying that they're maintaining the
> > branch.
> > Doug
> > ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-
> request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev