[all][tc] Relmgt team position on release cadence

Sean Mooney smooney at redhat.com
Fri Nov 5 17:53:41 UTC 2021

On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 16:18 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2021-11-05 11:53:25 -0400 (-0400), Mohammed Naser wrote:
> [...]
> > I wonder what are the thoughts of the community of having LTS +
> > normal releases so that we can have the power of both?  I guess
> > that is essentially what we have with EM, but I guess we could
> > introduce a way to ensure that operators can just upgrade LTS to
> > LTS.
> > 
> > It can complicate things a bit from a CI and project management
> > side, but I think it could solve the problem for both sides that
> > need want new features + those who want stability?
> This is really just another way of suggesting we solve the
> skip-level upgrades problem, since we can't really test fast-forward
> upgrades through so-called "non-LTS" versions once we abandon them.
well realisticlly i dont think the customer that are pusshign use to supprot skip level upgrades
or fast forward upgrades will be able to work with a cadence of 1 release a year so i would expect
use to still need to consider skip level upgrade between lts-2 to  new lts

we have several customer that need at least 12 months to complte certifacaiton of all of there workloads on a new cloud
so openstack distos will still have to support those customer that really need a 2 yearly or longer upgrade cadance
even if we had and lts release every year.

there are many other uses of openstack that can effectivly live at head cern and vexhost been two example that the 1 year cycle might
suit well but for our telco and finacial custoemr 12 is still a short upgrade horizon for them.

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list