Open Stack

David Moreau Simard wrote:
> This can go down a few different ways, I guess we can:
> 1) Extend the support of a stable release by a full year
>     This keeps the two rolling stable releases plus the one in development.
>     Not quite LTS, but you know, it's still 2 years of support instead of one.
> 
> 2) ​Keep the support cycle to a year
>     This would basically mean that as soon as there is a new release, the
>     previous one would become EOL ? This is what seems suggested here
>     and I'm really not confident this would be a great idea. It would force
>     people to upgrade within weeks after a new release to stay on a
>     supported version.

There is also the intermediary solution, where branches would be
supported for 15 or 18 months, giving a 3-month or 6-month overlap.

> As some others have mentioned in the thread, there are pros and cons to
> moving to a
> year-long cycle and I think it's great that we are having this
> discussion as it will help
> us make an informed decision.

Yes! The proposal is really based on partial feedback I received, which
is why I think we should have this discussion publicly to explore the
consequences and decide how much of a good idea it would be (or not).

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)