Open Stack

Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2015-09-08 14:11:48 -0400:
> On 09/08/2015 01:07 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Dean Troyer's message of 2015-09-08 11:20:47 -0500:
> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Doug Hellmann
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to come up with some way to express the time other than
> >>> N+M because in the middle of a cycle it can be confusing to know
> >>> what that means (if I want to deprecate something in August am I
> >>> far enough through the current cycle that it doesn't count?).
> >>>
> >>> Also, as we start moving more projects to doing intermediate releases
> >>> the notion of a "release" vs. a "cycle" will drift apart, so we
> >>> want to talk about "stable releases" not just any old release.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I've always thought the appropriate equivalent for projects not following
> >> the (old) integrated release cadence was for N == six months.  It sets
> >> approx. the same pace and expectation with users/deployers.
> >>
> >> For those deployments tracking trunk, a similar approach can be taken, in
> >> that deprecating a config option in M3 then removing it in N1 might be too
> >> quick, but rather wait at least the same point in the following release
> >> cycle to increment 'N'.
> >>
> >> dt
> >>
> > 
> > Making it explicitly date-based would simplify tracking, to be sure.
> 
> I would agree that the M3 -> N0 drop can be pretty quick, it can be 6
> weeks (which I've seen happen). However N == six months might make FFE
> deprecation lands in one release run into FFE in the next. For the CD
> case my suggestion is > 3 months. Because if you aren't CDing in
> increments smaller than that, and hence seeing the deprecation, you
> aren't really doing the C part of CDing.
> 
>     -Sean
> 

Do those 3 months need to span more than one stable release? For
projects doing intermediary releases, there may be several releases
within a 3 month period.

Doug