Open Stack

On 10/1/14, 11:53 AM, "Morgan Fainberg" <morgan.fainberg at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
>
>As stable branches got discussed recently, I'm kind of curious who is
>actually stepping up to make icehouse able to pass tests in any real
>way. Because right now I've been trying to fix devstack icehouse so that
>icehouse requirements can be unblocked (and to land code that will
>reduce grenade failures)
>
>I'm on retry #7 of modifying the tox.ini file in devstack.
>
>During the last summit people said they wanted to support icehouse for
>15 months. Right now we're at 6 months and the tree is basically unable
>to merge code.
>
>So who is actually standing up to fix these things, or are we going to
>just leave it broken and shoot icehouse in the head early?
>
>        -Sean
>
>--
>Sean Dague
>http://dague.net
>
>
>
>We should stick with the longer support for Icehouse in my opinion. I'll
>happily volunteer time to help get it back into shape.
>
>
>The other question is will Juno *also* have extended stable support? Or
>is it more of an LTS style thing (I'm not a huge fan of the LTS model,
>but it is easier in some regards). If every release is getting extended
>support, we may need to look at our tool
> chains so we can better support the releases.
>
>
>Cheers,
>Morgan 
>
>
>Sent via mobile  

Would ever release need to be LTS or would every other release (or every
4th) release be LTS? We could consider a policy like Ubuntu’s (e.g., 10.04
12.04, 14.04 are all LTS and the next will be 16.04).

—
Ian