Open Stack

+1

I think that as OpenStack's customer base grows, this is going to become more and more important, and will get the pain of users not getting updates will increase enough that there *will* be a group of engineers willing to  do not only backports and releases, but bugfixes in trunk and gate maintenance on the branches.  Providing a real "home" for these engineers will help empower them to act proactively to improve Stable branch releases and maybe even go beyond and develop a patch release process for stable releases that makes security and vulnerability fixes easier to install for the users.

As long as a critical mass can be reached for the team, it is likely that the team will exceed expectations.

--Rocky

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thierry at openstack.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 8:42 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [stable] Making stable maintenance its own
> OpenStack project team
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> A few cycles ago we set up the Release Cycle Management team which was
> a
> bit of a frankenteam of the things I happened to be leading: release
> management, stable branch maintenance and vulnerability management.
> While you could argue that there was some overlap between those
> functions (as in, "all these things need to be released") logic was not
> the primary reason they were put together.
> 
> When the Security Team was created, the VMT was spinned out of the
> Release Cycle Management team and joined there. Now I think we should
> spin out stable branch maintenance as well:
> 
> * A good chunk of the stable team work used to be stable point release
> management, but as of stable/liberty this is now done by the release
> management team and triggered by the project-specific stable
> maintenance
> teams, so there is no more overlap in tooling used there
> 
> * Following the kilo reform, the stable team is now focused on defining
> and enforcing a common stable branch policy[1], rather than approving
> every patch. Being more visible and having more dedicated members can
> only help in that very specific mission
> 
> * The release team is now headed by Doug Hellmann, who is focused on
> release management and does not have the history I had with stable
> branch policy. So it might be the right moment to refocus release
> management solely on release management and get the stable team its own
> leadership
> 
> * Empowering that team to make its own decisions, giving it more
> visibility and recognition will hopefully lead to more resources being
> dedicated to it
> 
> * If the team expands, it could finally own stable branch health and
> gate fixing. If that ends up all falling under the same roof, that team
> could make decisions on support timeframes as well, since it will be
> the
> primary resource to make that work
> 
> So.. good idea ? bad idea ? What do current stable-maint-core[2]
> members
> think of that ? Who thinks they could step up to lead that team ?
> 
> [1] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/530,members
> 
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> ___
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-
> request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev