[openstack-dev] Upstream LTS Releases

Chris Friesen chris.friesen at windriver.com
Tue Nov 14 21:50:08 UTC 2017

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.)


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list