[Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [stable][all] Keeping Juno "alive" for longer.

Clint Byrum clint at fewbar.com
Mon Nov 9 18:06:15 UTC 2015

Excerpts from James King's message of 2015-11-09 08:47:08 -0800:
> disclaimer: I’ve never worked in a software auditing department or on in a company with one
> What about risk-averse organizations with strict policy compliance guidelines? Can we expect them to audit a new distribution of Openstack every 6 months? Some sort of community-supported LTS system would at least give these consulting firms a base on which to build such a compliant Openstack distribution for industry X.

Nobody has said that the idea of an LTS is bad. The _realities_ are
simply challenging. Upgrades from release to release are already
painful, which I suspect is at least part of the reason many are still
on older releases. Upgrading across 2 years of development would
possibly be a herculean effort that so far nobody has even tried to
tackle without stepping through all intermediary releases.

> If we’re only talking about patches to support minor updates to system packages what’s the cost to the community?

The two biggest are the testing infrastructure and maintaining upgrade
support. The first is already stretched thin, and the latter has
managed to scare away anyone who brings up LTS releases without them
even attempting it.

> I’m not against Tom’s idea and would be satisfied with it but it would be better, I think, to at least give the community an option of a solid base on which to build a compliant Openstack distribution that isn’t going to move out from underneath them in six months.
> Unless of course that should be the job of some distribution maintainer… in which case how to we work with them?

We do work with distro maintainers. They do a ton of work in the stable

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list