On 21/08/2025 18:41, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2025-08-21 19:20:53 +0200 (+0200), thomas@goirand.fr wrote: [...]
Also, the fact users cannot invest enough of their time upgrading is still something unadressed in OpenStack. If we're lacking workforce, there are ways to fix it, like having a release per year instead of 2, so we'd have 3 years of support instead of just one and a half. I know this has been discussed ad-nauseam, but it doesn't remove the concern. And since upstream OpenStack project still hasn't addressed it, what I am asking for is an acceptable middle ground. [...]
I know it doesn't help in the unmaintained/zed case, but starting with the 2023.1 release only one stable branch per year will transition from maintained to unmaintained status (the other will go straight to EOL), and we provide tested guarantees for upgrading between them. This halves the number of unmaintained branches per year going forward, reducing the burden on the community and making it possible to keep more of them open for longer, hopefully.
we have already EOL'd bobcat in many cases under that policy already. i also don't think we should keep branches open without testing but i was also rignaly against keeping unmaintained branches alive in general. if folks do maintian them with passing tests that one thing but at the very minium they shoudl have tox tests passsing. weather they run tempest is an other story i think they should but unmaintained branches are allowed and encouraged to reduce testing if it is broken and not fixed promptly. https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/be482953d3dd650ca3128fd0b445664... i think we shoudl be removing all unmainted branche before 2023.1 however since folks hae been maintianing some of the older nova branches i have not really puhsed for that whiel that maintaince continues. https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/branches we can see fixes form elod as recent as 2 months ago for victoria keeping the branches passing in ci https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/commit/de854c89825ce2146f8c1e2a70fe455f78... for watcher there was 0 mantiance happening so we cleaned up the brnach to singlne that nooen shoudl use the older branches https://opendev.org/openstack/watcher/branches out side of a limited set of project most have not had any maintenance on the unmaintained branch in > 6 months https://opendev.org/openstack/cinder/branches https://opendev.org/openstack/glance/branches https://opendev.org/openstack/keystone/branches users of openstack should rightly take that as a signal that they should not be running those older branches from upstream source in production unless they are actively backpacking patches internally. it would be nice to think that if they did that they would do it upstream for all to benefit but that just does not happen. part of the reason we reneamed them to unmaintiend was to signal that there was no commitment or expcation form the core teams to propsose review or merge changes on teh unmaintained branches https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/20230724-unm... if other want to collaber on the unmainted brances i dont object ot that but the "The CI for all branches must be in good standing at the time of opt-in." as is """ By default, only the latest eligible Unmaintained branch is kept. When a new branch is eligible, the Unmaintained branch liaison must opt-in to keep all previous branches active. """ https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/20230724-unm... in other words ever time we do a release to opt into keeping the older unmainted brances the ci must be in good standing. That is why i think any older unmaintiened branch that is not passing ci shoudl either have it reduced but not elimited or fixed failure ot do that shoudl result in them being EOL'd per the unmaintiend branch policy.