Open Stack

I agree, but to use your argument: how hard would it be to setup a small group to do this for the community? I’m sure there would be a few people interested in maintaining it…

From: matt [mailto:matt at nycresistor.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 1:18 PM
To: Fox, Kevin M
Cc: Jesse Keating; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

backporting patches isn't too terribly hard to be honest.  you could probably hire a consultant to do it if need be.  mirantis would probably quote you a price.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov<mailto:Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov>> wrote:
Kind of related, as an op, we see a lot of 3rd party repositories that recently only supported rhel5 move to finally supporting rhel6 because rhel7 came out and rhel5 went to long term support contract only. This caused us to have to support rhel5 way longer then we would have liked. Now, we're stuck at 6 instead of 7. :/

Some number of users will stick with juno until it is EOL and then move. Sometimes its because its a desire to not make a change. Sometimes its considered a good thing by the ops that they finally have a "good enough" excuse (EOL) to move forward "finally" (sigh of relief). :)

Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________
From: Jesse Keating [jlk at bluebox.net<mailto:jlk at bluebox.net>]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 10:14 AM
To: Dan Smith
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.
We (Blue Box, an IBM company) do have a lot of installs on Juno, however we'll be aggressively moving to Kilo, so we are not interested in keeping Juno alive.


- jlk

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Dan Smith <dms at danplanet.com<mailto:dms at danplanet.com>> wrote:
> Worth mentioning that OpenStack releases that come out at the same time
> as Ubuntu LTS releases (12.04 + Essex, 14.04 + Icehouse, 16.04 + Mitaka)
> are supported for 5 years by Canonical so are already kind of an LTS.
> Support in this context means patches, updates and commercial support
> (for a fee).
> For paying customers 3 years of patches, updates and commercial support
> for April releases, (Kilo, O, Q etc..) is also available.

Yeah. IMHO, this is what you pay your vendor for. I don't think upstream
maintaining an older release for so long is a good use of people or CI
resources, especially given how hard it can be for us to keep even
recent stable releases working and maintained.

--Dan

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20151106/dc3a827d/attachment.html>