[Openstack-operators] Fwd: [openstack-dev] [stable] Organizational changes to support stable branches

Kris G. Lindgren klindgren at godaddy.com
Fri Nov 14 22:36:38 UTC 2014

>On 15 November 2014 07:57, Kris G. Lindgren <klindgren at godaddy.com> wrote:
>> I personally am hoping for a clear definition of what "stable" actually
>> means.
>Congruence on that is critical.


>> I know we (Godaddy) try to stay on stable releases and not
>> run on trunk, I assume a majority of other operators do as well.
>Some large public cloud operators run production on trunk. The
>dissonance between this approach and what is the traditional
>enterprise behaviour of using a stable branch is a significant. If we
>assume that the large operators are getting the best stability
>results, then should enterprises be investing in CI/CD and all that it

  We carry patches sets on top of stable releases that solve enterprise
specific asks that are most likely not relevant to the rest of the
community.  Running on trunk carrying those patch sets would require  many
many man hours that we don¹t have.  It also requires one to be pretty well
plugged into each of the major projects that you care about so you can be
made aware of changes that are coming - instead of always dealing with
CI/CD build failures.  As an operator, neither are things that I have any
particular need/want to do.  That way we (typically) only have to worry
about re-baseing our patch sets when we go from stable -> new stable
release - icehouse -> juno.


More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list