Open Stack

On 14/11/17 15:10 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2017-11-14 14:01:58 -0600:
>> On 11/14/2017 01:28 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > I'm not assuming bad intentions, not at all. But there is a lot of involved in a
>> > decision whether to make a backport or not. Will these people be able to
>> > evaluate a risk of each patch? Do they have enough context on how that release
>> > was implemented and what can break? Do they understand why feature backports are
>> > bad? Why they should not skip (supported) releases when backporting?
>> >
>> > I know a lot of very reasonable people who do not understand the things above
>> > really well.
>>
>> I would hope that the core team for upstream LTS would be the (hopefully
>> experienced) people doing the downstream work that already happens within the
>> various distros.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>Presumably those are the same people we've been trying to convince
>to work on the existing stable branches for the last 5 years. What
>makes these extended branches more appealing to those people than
>the existing branches? Is it the reduced requirements on maintaining
>test jobs? Or maybe some other policy change that could be applied
>to the stable branches?

Guessing based on the feedback so far, I would say that these branches are more
appealing because they are the ones these folks are actually running in
production.

Flavio

--
@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/20171115/6e05c6fe/attachment.sig>