Open Stack

On 11/14/2017 02:10 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2017-11-14 14:01:58 -0600:
>> On 11/14/2017 01:28 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>
>>>> The quality of backported fixes is expected to be a direct (and only?)
>>>> interest of those new teams of new cores, coming from users and operators and
>>>> vendors.
>>>
>>> I'm not assuming bad intentions, not at all. But there is a lot of involved in a
>>> decision whether to make a backport or not. Will these people be able to
>>> evaluate a risk of each patch? Do they have enough context on how that release
>>> was implemented and what can break? Do they understand why feature backports are
>>> bad? Why they should not skip (supported) releases when backporting?
>>>
>>> I know a lot of very reasonable people who do not understand the things above
>>> really well.
>>
>> I would hope that the core team for upstream LTS would be the (hopefully
>> experienced) people doing the downstream work that already happens within the
>> various distros.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> Presumably those are the same people we've been trying to convince
> to work on the existing stable branches for the last 5 years. What
> makes these extended branches more appealing to those people than
> the existing branches? Is it the reduced requirements on maintaining
> test jobs? Or maybe some other policy change that could be applied
> to the stable branches?


For what it's worth, we often lag more than 6 months behind master and so some 
of the things we backport wouldn't be allowed by the existing stable branch 
support phases.  (ie aren't "critical" or security patches.)

Chris