Open Stack

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, at 14:09, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> The primary reason stable branches exist is to make it easier for us
> to test and publish backports of critical patches to older versions
> of the software, rather than expecting our downstream consumers to
> do that work themselves. If you're saying distribution package
> maintainers are going to do it anyway and ignore our published
> backports, then dropping the branching model may make sense, but
> I've seen evidence to suggest that at least some distros do consume
> our backports directly.

Don't get me wrong, SUSE is consuming those backports, and (at least was) contributing to them.
And yes, I doubt that RH/SUSE/Canonical are simply consuming those packages without ever adding their patches on a case by case basis. So yes, those distros are already doing part of their work downstream (and/or upstream). And for a valid reason: it's part of their job :)

Doesn't mean we, as a whole community, still need to cut the work for every single consumer.
If we are stretched thin, we need to define priorities.

I believe our aggressive policy in terms of branching is hurting the rest of the ecosystem, that's why I needed to say things out loud. I meant the less we branch, the less we backport, the less painful upgrades we have to deal with. It depends on our definition of _when to branch_ of course. Your example of a "critical patch" might be a good reason to branch. We are maybe in a place where this can be on a case by case basis, or that we should improve that definition?

Regards,
JP