[openstack-dev] Upstream LTS Releases

Dmitry Tantsur dtantsur at redhat.com
Wed Nov 15 07:56:44 UTC 2017

On 11/14/2017 11:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2017-11-14 15:50:08 -0600:
>> 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
> We should include a review of some of those policies as part of
> this discussion. It would seem very odd to have a fix land in master,
> not make it into the stable branches, and then show up in a branch
> following the LTS policy.

Actually, I'm strongly against skipping any supported (not EOL-ed) branches when 
backporting patches. This includes normal stable branches, as well as other LTS 

The main reason, if somebody wonders, is to avoid regressions for people 
upgrading from a version with a backport to a version without.

> Doug
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list