Open Stack

Adrian Turjak wrote:
> I worry that moving to a yearly release is actually going to make things
> worse for deployers and there will be less encouragement for them to be
> on more up to date and bug fixed code. Not to mention, no one will trust
> or use the intermediary releases unless they are coordinated and tested
> much like the current release process. That means that anyone is who
> upgrading faster will be forced to wait for yearly releases because they
> are the only ones they know to be 'stable'.
> 
> I'm actually one of the 20% developers upstream (although I'm trying to
> change that), and my experience is actually the opposite. I like the
> shorter release times, I'd find that longer releases will make it much
> harder and longer waits to get anything in. With the 6 month cadence I
> know that if I miss a deadline for one release, the next one is around
> the corner. I've never had issue following up in the next release, and
> often if a feature or bug fix misses a release, in my experience the
> core team does a good job of making it a bit more of a priority. With
> yearly releases I'd be waiting for a year to get my code into a stable
> coordinated release, and then longer for that code to be deployed as
> part of an upgrade to a stable release. And I do often miss release
> deadlines, and that yearly wait would drive me mad.
> [...]

That is excellent feedback. Thanks Adrian!

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)