Open Stack

On 01/21/2016 02:38 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> That said, I'd like to see a different release cadence for cycles that are
> "stabilization cycles". We, as a community, are not using minor version
> numbers. During a stabilization cycle, I would like to see master be
> released around the 3 milestones as X.1.0, X.2.0, X.3.0. If we work that
> way, then we'll be able to avoid having to backport a lot of work to the
> X.0 series and while we could support X.0 series with specific backports,
> it would avoid stressing our already small stable teams.


Hi Ian,

In which way what you're proposing above is different from what we
currently have (ie: beta 1, 2 and 3)?

FYI, even though I often skip the beta 1 (because I'm still working on
the previous stable), I always release beta 2 and 3 as pre-releases for
everyone to test. These are uploaded to Debian experimental (well, when
the next stable Debian isn't frozen...), plus non-official backport
repositories for stable Debian and Ubuntu. I'd very much welcome more
people to consume that, but I haven't receive much feedback from it.

> My release
> strategy, however, may cause more stress for downstream packages
> though. It'll cause them to have to decide what and when to package
> and to be far more aware of each project's current development cycle.
> I'm not sure that's positive.

I'm not sure why you're saying this (as I probably didn't understand
your release idea), but what I can tell: don't count on downstream
distribution to double guess project statuses. It's simply impossible,
unless we spend a great amount of time communicating with each project,
which currently can't happen given the current staffing (which I know is
scarce on all downstream distros, including: Red Hat, Debian, Ubuntu and
Suse).

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)