[Openstack-operators] LTS Dreaming ... [was] Help: Liberty installation guide (English).
itzshamail at gmail.com
Wed Apr 12 14:46:04 UTC 2017
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Jonathan D. Proulx <jon at csail.mit.edu>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 06:01:00PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> :Right, but the distros aren't interested in funding developers for LTS
> :upstream work, much less a lot of the stable branch support upstream. It
> :shouldn't be surprising why, that's where they can make money.
> No doubt that's their thought. I for one don't think that would make
> any difference in who's paying them while it would cut down on their
> costs, but as you say:
> :As has been mentioned already, none of this is news and we go over it at
> :least once per year.
> So I doubt anyone's shifting their corporate priorities around this.
FWIW, we had a discussion and user story on this topic in the Product WG
last year... the distro vendors were not against upstreaming things to
enable a longer upstream support but the topic divided into three main
1) What would be the impact to infra requirements (this discussion happened
when node count was in reduction)?
2) Who would be responsible for taking and acting on patch requests for
3) Should the overall release cadence be longer than 6 months (we had
representation from both sides that were comfortable with upgrades and
rolling in changes that wanted more frequent releases to get fixes and
features faster and organizations that wanted releases to be more "stable"
so they weren't either upgrading or planning for an upgrade almost
The user story didn't move forward since we couldn't find an optimal
solution for #3 and #1 and #2 were also left open. Sharing this for context.
> :Oh btw, Mitaka EOL was scheduled for yesterday.
> Yay! I'm EOL again!
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
tz: Eastern Time
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-operators